


0- ■'::.. ^ - .><^. ' ^ ,A^' ■% 





















V' .^'■'^' - ^v ^^\; '^, c;^ v. .- ■.. . ^. - _^ 






V"^^^/'^°'^^^'V"^^^^^^■^^^*^/'o, "^^^ ^,^;,o_^-,,;<^ - .#\oX!% 






^^ \> ^ ^ '•• " - 












.O / ^ iX ^ '' . s 'X 'Zj ■ li .. V • .(J -^ ' I s^ *'X 



i^-^^: •. .^'°- 'vw/ ,.^ "■- 



: Ci,'.^^^-^^.- a^ <^^/' ' cO ^ -. ^"^ 







?I^^". •■" ^' J^^ 



Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/inquiryintocareeOOdepe 



1; 



^/mM 



/ // 



is^-t 



w 







W7-^<i^/A^/i '. 




AN INQUIRY 



INTO THE 



CAREER AND CHARACTER 



OF 



MARY STUART 



(■'CRUX CRITIUORUM.") 

i" Tlie puzzle of critics^ ) 

AND A 

JUSTIFICATION 

OF 

BOTHWELL 

C'AUDIRE EST OPER^ PRKTIUM.") 

0" What is herein disclosed is tvorthy o/ attention.") 



J. Watts DE Peyster, 



CHARLES H. LUDWIG, PRINTER, 10 & 12 READE STREET. 

18 8 3. 







'•.'••'< 



,0 th^ fflriginal of thfe :^en :flortraii 




" The prettiest, tiniest little head 
That ever sat on an ivory neck — 
So smooth and so rounded — without a fleck — 
That jewels were wasted such throat to deck — 
In its muslin frill, like pearl in its bed ; 
With a flood of soft, rippling nut-brown hair, 
Reflecting in gold the kiss of the air ; 
Ears small and so perfect — but by him seen, 
Praxiteles models they might have been. 
To complete his statue of Beauty's queen : 
And eyes like turquoise and sapphire mingled ; 
A voice as when silver bells are tingled — 
And withal so saucy ! There 's not a grace 
But finds a fit home in that charming face ! " 



TO AVHOSE SUGGESTION 

The Author's 

STUDIES ON MARY STUART AND BOTHWELL 

ARE DUE, 

Mi^ %Voxh i^ Gratefully geditated. 



Copyright. 1883. by J. Watts de Pbyster. 






lii»Mn«<rroK 



'» 




"And wrought fell deeds the troubled world along, 
For he was fierce as brave, and pitiless as strong." 

Sir Walter Scott's ^^ Vision oj" Don Roderick^'' xxx. 



Lady Buccleugh. — " And loves she Bothwell ?" 
Lady Reres. — "Yes, indeed she does; 

And she hath found in him a nobler mate 
Than any yet on whom she's fix'd her choice : 
The rest were boys. In him she's found a man ; 
A rough one it is true, but still a man : 
A diamond but half polish'd, but a man : 
Hepburn's a jewel meet for Mary Stuart. 
They greet at him, but such as he can scorn 
The calculating, hypocritic guile 
Of foxy Morton, Knox's fav'nte Murray, 
Who leaves to baser instruments the deed. 
And looks at evil through, betwixt, his fingers ; 
Ready to pluck the fruit when it's matur'd 
Upon the muck heap fully fed its growth ; 
And if_/or Aim cares not how 't grew or grows. 
James Hepburn, with his mail'd and stalwart hand 
Plucks the ripe ear at once, with fearless front ; 
He is no coward. 'Mid false, sordid ' Bonds ' 
That rule this Scotland, he alone is true. 
Poor he has been, despite his lofty birth, 
So poor he's lack'd a single golden piece 
To pay his score : yet never took a bribe 
To wrong his country for a foreign quean ; — 
He never sold his honor to Queen Bess, 
As other nobles flout at faithfulness 
So that their jerkins gleam at Tudor cost. 
His creed he's clung to spite of ev'ry wile. 
Nor ever made, like Murray, creed the cloak 
To hide intent, and set the kiln on fire 
That burn'd our land, aye, to the very bone, 
So that it prov'd alembic whence t' extract 
Gain, influence, power, for selfish ends. 
Hepburn's no hypocrite ! He loves Mary 
For Mary Stuart's sake, and will not yield 
A single inch to foreign lure or price, 



Content to risk the loss of all he seeks 

Rather than sacrifice the faith is his. 

Sin ! he may sin against his own brave soul, 

But never 'gainst what he deems great and true 

To foster his ambition. The people, 

They know that in his soul, there burns the fire 

For Scotland's Independence flaming high. 

The nobles love him not. He scorns their lies, 

Their moral weakness and their selfish strength, 

However brave in brawl and shedding blood. 

Among the nobles, Hepburn 's not a friend ; 

But 'mid the people, duly weigh'd 's the man. 

There's not a lord is held in such content 

And honest admiration. This makes Mary, 

Despising such a coward thing as Darnley, 

Seek to break loose from brilliant toy she once. 

With love begotten through the eye, not reason. 

So madly wed, and long to link her fate 

With one who, once beside her on the throne, 

Fit mate would be for a queen to mate with : 

And brave as she, throw banner to the winds. 

And say to England, ' Come what storm come may, 

I and my husband will affront it boldly !' " 

"James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell," « Tragedy. 



HE world judges by results. Admiration, 
even if accompanied with discontent or 
heart-burning irritation, follows those men 
wdio, bj audacious craft, succeed in attain- 
ing the highest power. He, however, wdio 
just before reaching his objective, has a 
fall, perhaps richly merited, may be cer- 
tain that not merely hate, but also ridicule and even con- 
tempt, M'ill sit in judgment on him ; and, at the same time 
that his chief characteristics are denied to him, the de- 
cision will be so distorted as to be irrecognizable. If, again, 
the individual, on trial, has sought to elevate himself by 
crime, no enemy will let the opportunity escape for throw- 
ing the full weight of moral vengeance upon him, and, in 




this way, wm, in turn, for himself the appearance of heing 
a defender of the innocent and a champion of the right. 
]^ot snch should be the judgment of history : and, if the 
hate of contemporaries has, as it were, stoned a prominent 
man, then the duty of the Muse, as difficult as it is neces- 
sary, is to trace back the causes and sift the evidence on 
which the verdict was founded, — a labor often long deferred 
by passions, aroused and successful — for the time being — 
to what clearness is possible, and to extricate the truth., so 
to speak, from the ruins. 

A fate of this sort, tragical not only by reason of rapid 
elevation and sudden fall, but also of the undeservedly 
severe verdict of posterity, has been the portion of James 
Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, the third husband of Mary 
Stuart. In his case, if nothing more is regarded than 
the intimate relations into which he came with the un- 
fortunate queen, this alone should furnish the strongest 
incentive for historians to investigate his true character 
thoroughly, in order to derive therefrom important his- 
torical data to form a correct judgment of the whole 
period. Unhappily, calumny grows luxuriantly over the 
fallen. It springs up, partly, from wickedness originating 
in design, and, partly, from blind moral anger, multiplied 
and recorded by scandalous, and yet more by thoughtless, 
persons, without proof. It climbs like poisonous ivy, thick 
and disorderly over Bothwell, and so conceals his true form 
that this can only, at last and with great labor, be, as it 



were, stripped of tlie rank investure. One writer only 
lias as yet, properly speaking, taken his part. Dr. Phil. 
A. Peteick, wlio, in liis Pamphlet, about 50 pages, "Zi^r 
Geschichte des Graf en Bothwell^ ' ' Berlin — St. Petersburg, 
1874 — a wonderfully clear and honest production, has 
striven to show to what lengths falsehood, calumny, 
enmity, jealousy, and a host of other meaner character- 
istics, crowned with success, can go to blacken the life 
and memory of an honest opponent after he had lost the 
game and stakes in a contest with the vilest sharpers. 

A defence, and counsel, by the principles of a wise 
justice, among civilized peoples, is allowed even to the 
manifestly guilty. How much more is it a duty to accord 
it to one whose guilt is at least not certain, and whose 
motives may be clearly traced. Yes, it is an unavoidable 
duty. The object of this little work, confined within the 
narrowest Kmits, is not intended to be, properly speaking, 
a defence, but it inevitably becomes such. This is a con- 
secpience of the facts dra^ai from trustworthy sources. It 
is especially intended to fulfill a task Mdiich should long ago 
have been performed, and which is indispensable as a pre- 
paratory study to any impartial inquisition into that period 
of history. This is so not only because it will clearly show 
what accusations have been heaped upon him justly ; what 
others without proof, and what others from sheer calumny. 
This is the more necessary on account of the short time 
during which he influenced the fate of Scotland, not only 



greatly but decisively (1566 and 156Y). During this 
period he was the central figure of the crisis — a crisis re- 
plete with results. This investigation will especially clear 
up, with the aid of all the means at tlie command of the 
critic, the facts of his previous career, as well as of its ter- 
mination, and seek to obtain a judgment on him and of his 
character and motives, from both of those periods. When 
even great writers of history, examining those years alone, 
however closely, let him, so to speak, rise out of the dark- 
ness and then leave him to sink back into the same dark- 
ness, such an examination as is proposed herein is a won- 
derful satisfaction, if nothing else. It is not only from 
interest in the man, but much more for the purpose of un- 
derstanding the times in which he so prominently figured, 
that the complete comprehension of his characteristics are 
indispensably requisite. And if we are unable to deter- 
mine scarcely more than approximately the date of his 
death and the day of his birth, it is yet an absolute duty 
to piece together, with all possible exactness, whatever 
facts of his life may yet be discovered. To quarry them 
out of the original sources is indeed a difficult, but not a 
thankless toil, since the most fruitful revelations for the 
whole period become the rewards of the difficult labor — 
and the more that the authorities consulted, to a greater 
or less degree, immediately obscure the image, the more 
does it become evident that only a very close investigation 



and comparison can reveal witli clearness, the trne form, 
its proportions, peculiarities and excellencies. 

The judgments pronounced on Bothwell are almost 
unanimous, and yet thej do not hang together. They are 
unanimous in that all, to a certain extent, condemn him. 
They are all inconsequent, because they are founded on 
statements which not only differ from, but contradict each 
other. Suspicion as to these verdicts is thus only too 
fully justified. 

First in order, his contemporaries, among his accusers, 
require consideration. Buchanan never styles him other- 
wise than "a wicked and perfidious man." The "pirate" 
is with him the regular epithet. In the same way, in Mur- 
ray's Diary for the 20th July, the "pirates" are Both- 
well and his friends. Buchanan, in his "Detection of 
Mary and Action against Mary" the Queen, is full of the 
lowest abuse of him. Certainly the skillfully planned de- 
sign of throwing back the implied reflection on Mary her- 
self shows through only too clearly, and yet calumny 
always attains its object, in so far that a part of it invari- 
ably seems to imj^ress itself indelibly upon the recollection. 
' ' Calumniate boldly, ' ' says the Proverb, ' ' some will stick. ' ' 
The English Ambassadors in Scotland, Throckmorton, 
Randolph, Bedford, next join in. Throckmorton, ]^ovem- 
ber, 1560, calls him " a vain-glorious, rash and hazardous 
young man. ' ' This is a forced translation ; ' ' glorious ' ' 
{gloriosus) has for its primary meaning "illustrious." 



Randolph to Cecil, 3d June, 1563, styles him "a naked, 
good for nothing beggar ; the same, 31st March, 1562, 
" The Earl of Both well (tried to) waylay Ormiston twice ;" 
6th April, 1566, "I assure (you) Both well is as naughty 
a man as liveth, and much given to the detestable vices." 
Bedford to Cecil, 12th August, 1566, " Both well has grown 
of late so hated that he cannot long continue." Yet 
sharper is the official letter of James YI. (that is of his 
guardian, the Earl of Murray, for James was then evi- 
dently only two years old) concerning the delivering up of 
Bothwell by King Frederick II. of Denmark, of the date 
21st August, 1568. It reads, " An assassin of well known 
cruelty;" "A robber condemned by divine and human 
judgment. ' ' Elizabeth to Frederick II. ,1569. 26th August, 
1568, "the parricidal murderer of his king." She seems 
to believe that he was related to Darnley. Remark that 
in this letter Elizabeth styles Darnley "King," to whom 
in his lifetime she always denied that title, even at the 
christening of his son. Buchanan to Frederick II. of 
Denmark, 19th March, 1591, "An incorrigible traitor," 
All this is outdone by Thomas Buchanan, Ambassador of 
James YL, to Denmark, in his letter to Frederick II., 
15Y1, "A monstrous beast, and of all men who exist, or 
ever will, the most wicked." 

That all the accusers of Mary Stuart sound loudly the 
same notes is the more easily explained that these contem- 
poraries were simply accomplices of Bothwell, as will be 
2 



10 

demonstrated. Those wlio especially followed the tactics 
of painting Bothwell in the blackest colors felt the more 
compelled to do so in order, by this means, to destroy the 
character of Mary Stuart. But when a Hume will concede 
nothing good of Bothwell, and says, "without being dis- 
tinguished by a single talent, whether for politics or war, 
he had obtained for himself a certain amount of reputation ; 
perfectly immoral, overwhelmed by debts which were 
greater than his property, he had plunged himself into 
absolute need by his dissoluteness, and appeared to have 
no other resources than desperate undertakings " — it is 
notably unintelligible how such a man, " without a single 
talent," could attain to so great a preponderance that he 
even, by the admission of his enemies, governed Mary 
Stuart, and got rid of Darnley by murdering him, without 
any one daring to rise against him ; forced even the Parlia- 
ment to acquit him ; compelled the assent of the whole 
nobility to his marriage wdth Mary ; and could be eventu- 
ally overthrown only by cunning, surprise and treachery, 
such as transcended the cold-blooded calculation of a 
Machiavelli, the sensual cruelty of a Borgia, and the con- 
scienceless fiendishness of a Yisconti. 

"Italy has been commonly regarded as the country 
where, in the Middle Ages, the art of political perfidy 
reached the highest degree of perfection ; but we may 
search the annals of Rome or Yenice in vain for the details 
of any plot which, for depth or villainy, can match with 



11 

that of which the murder of Rizzio was only the first act. 
What were the consequences to be anticipated from that 
outrage ? Probably the miscarriage, perhaps the death * 
of the Queen ; and failing these contingencies, her deposi- 
tion and imprisonment. What was to follow next ? The 
elevation to the throne of a prince who was an object of 
hatred and contempt of every one of his associates, and 
whose incorrigible folly would speedily afford them an op- 
portunity and a pretext for depriving him of his authority. 
Then, and not till then, would the true objects of Rizzio' s 
murder be disclosed — namely, the usurpation of the go- 
vernment, with the certain support of the more fanatical 
section of the Scottish Protestants and the liardly less cer- 
tain support of the Queen of England. Machiavelli never 
conceived — he has certainly never described — a plot more 
devilish in its designs than that which was devised by the 
more knowing of the conspirators, ostensibly for the death 
of Pizzio, but in reality for the destruction of both Mary 
Stuart and her husband." (Hosack I., 142-3.) 

On the other hand, it might be reasonably supposed 
that the champions of Mary Stuart would also defend him 
(Both well). JSTot at all; they abandon him entirely. 
Camden styles him "a weak man." Melvil, the trusted 



* Melville, who was at Holyrood at the time, says : " For she 
being big with child, it appeared to be done to destroy both her and 
her child ; for they might have killed the said Rizzio in any other 
part at any time they pleased." — " Memoirs," 66. 



12 

counsellor of Mary, who, however, quickly changed into 
her persecutor, describes him as making, continually, at- 
tempts on the life of the Queen (!), of Arran, of Murray, of 
Darnley, of Melville, and of whom else who knows ; and 
he entirely denies to Bothwell the possession of courage. 
The following abuse is applied to him: "Heart failed 
him, his arm was not so valiant as his tongue;" so also 
the '•'■ Ilistoire Traglque^'''' "his cowardice." Herrera, 
"wherefore being very ambitious and given to self-indul- 
gence." Blackwood, in his " Martyrdom of Mary 
Stuart," calls him "audacious, proud, easy to be influ- 
enced." Brantome, the devoted worshipper of ladies, 
thinks to annihilate him: "For this Bothwell was the 
most ugly man and the most ungraceful that could be 
seen." Blackwood, however, energetically contradicts 
this, and cites Bothwell "For his beauty." Further- 
more, as a pattern of disconnected, self-contradicting judg- 
ment, may stand a passage from Buchanan, his embittered 
enemy (Action against Mary, Jebb L, 255): "What is 
there in him that would be attractive to a M^oman who was 
at all particular ? Does any one see in him any dignity of 
speech, or figure, or strength of mind ? But there is no 
need to say much of eloquence or form, when no one who 
heard him coidd doubt the puerility and dullness of the 
man. He was prudent in the business he undertook, re- 
solute in facing danger, munificent in giving, temperate in 
his pleasures ! Not even those most devoted to him ven- 



13 

tured to credit him witli prudence ! ! [Note the absolute 
irreconcilableness of these last two sentences. ] He secured 
a reputation for bravery ; but surrounded by horsemen, 
mounted upon a fierce horse, personally safe, looking at 
the fighting of others, now and then he pursued a flying 
enemy. He never could endure to looh upon the threaten- 
ing countenance of a foeman at close quarters." 

This would be killing judgment if it only possessed 
either sense or connection, but does it not seem exactly as 
if a writer were credulous enough to put together, without 
examination or comparison, a mosaic of scraps picked up 
blindly from promiscuous sources of information ? What 
is more, the whole of these* do not agree together, and it 



* Kapin, acknowledged by all but ultras — Papists and Mariolo- 
trists — as a standard and trustworthy authority, makes some remarks 
upon the the history of this period which must be conclusive to every 
reader not cased in the stiff panoply of religious prejudice, and wrapped, 
as to the mental vision, with the- bandage of bigoted dogmatism. In 
his folio edition (London, 1733; Vol. II., pp. 76, 77) : "Three histori- 
ans, who may be considered as originals, have related what passed in 
Scotland during the reign of Elizabeth ; namely, George Buchanan, 
William Camden and James Melvil." He then goes on to dissect the 
character and expose the motives of the three. While doing justice 
to Buchanan's narrative, in many respects, he says, " [As to motive] he 
was Mui'ray's creature, and deem'd revengeful." In other words, he 
was the enemy of Mary and Bothwell and all who sustained either. As 
to Camden, Rapin actually styles his account a " forged story." " Many 
believe Camden writ nothing in his Annals about Scotland but what 
was dictated to him, or enjoined by James I." Osborn says, "that 
Camden's lines were directed by King James." "In short, it may 
be said of these three historians, in regard to Queen Mary, that Cam- 
den had scarce said one word of Truth, that Buchanan has said all 



14 

is this very diversity wliicli condemns tlieir otherwise 
striking unanimity in and of malice. 

But if the defenders of Mary Stuart abandon Both- 
well, is not that a decisive argument against him, her third 
husband ? By no means ; for if those accusers painted 
him as odious as possible, in order in this way to dishonor 
her, the others might have adopted the same tactics from 
a belief that there was no other way of saving her than by 
rejecting him ; of denying every connecting link between 
them, and indeed maintaining the impossibility of any in- 
clination on her part for him. Since, however, certain 
traces of such an inclination could not be got rid of by de- 
nying them, this was always the weakest point of the de- 
fence ; but it is decidedly an illogical conclusion to 
believe that Mary, even if she loved Bothwell, must neces- 
sarily have been an accomplice in the murder of Darnley. 
He could very well have arranged it without her know- 
ledge, behind her back ; yes, carried it out, and yet have 
taken his measures so skillfully that she noticed nothing, 
and honestly believed him innocent. But why was it that 
Bothwell found no fj-iend, no defender ? Are not inter- 
ested motives for the general hatred against him to be dis- 
covered everywhere ? He had no party, he belonged to 
no party — he was a ]3arty in himself. This, this was his 
damning sin, his condemnation. 



tlie Truths and more than the Truth, and that Melvil has said the 
Truth, hut not the whole TrMi!/*."— (Rapin, Fol. II., p. 77, Note 2.) 



15 

Altliougli the author has presented so much that is 
original, and arrived at so many opinions diametrically 
opposite to the vast majority who have undertaken to 
write upon the subject of Bothwell, but have simply 
slipped into the rut of vituperation without being able 
to extricate themselves from it, he finds that in a foreign 
land, and in a foreign tongue, James Hepburn has found 
an advocate who used in some instances the very same 
terms, or words, in vindication of the Scottish Earl. 
Consequently, in this, his third pamphlet on the subject, 
the writer determined to follow closely, but not obsequi- 
ously. Dr. Petrick, and present a translation of what might 
be termed the able German's brief. The only absolute 
error discovered in the whole presentment of Dr. Petrick 
in respect to Bothwell — differences of opinion between 
the doctor and the author as to Mary do constantly oc- 
cur — is contained in the following jDaragraph, and it 
would not be allowed to appear were it not to show how 
a critic, right in ninety-nine points, may err on the hun. 
dreth simply from an oversight ; viz. : that he confounds 
two men, both created Earls of Bothwell ; Ramsay — of low 
birth, who had previously neither position nor land — by 
James III., and Patrick Hepburn of Hales — who belonged 
to one of the most ancient, honorable and influential families 
in Scotland, who (these Hepburns) held in their ' ' fast grip' ' 
the lands constituting the Lordship of Bothwell — by James 
lY. Our James Hepburn was the great-grandson of 



16 

this Patrick, first Earl of Botliwell, and there was no 
more connection of either with the titular Bothwell, 
Ramsay, than a clear mountain stream, glorious in every 
attribute, has with an artificial muddy ditch. 

Family feuds and the pride of noble blood are nowhere 
else so strong as in Scotland. Ancient blood and the bonds 
of race which, to some extent, went back to the blood of 
the Pharaohs, are the final determiuing "factors of the 
parties." Bothwell' s race [a complete error] could not 
boast itself of the same antiquity carried far back. They 
were upstarts, and that not from the first ranks. It is 
incomprehensible [but still correct] that Robinson (I., 
317) should call him the head of an old family. He was 
only the fourth Earl of the name, and the title seems not 
to have been in existence previously to 148-1. [But lie 
was one of the noble, ancient Hepburn s.] He must, 
therefore, have appeared to the nobility as very mean, and 
have been hated as an intruder. In fact, the first Earl 
of Bothwell had been too much such a one for Scottish 
family pride to digest or ever to pardon it in his great 
grandson. King James III., who, in 1485, was beaten at 
Bannockburn by a coalition under his own son, James IV., 
and killed in the fight, was hated both for his love for the 
fine arts and for his democratic penchant for favorites from 
the lower classes. Robertson mentions among them, 
Cochran, a mason ; Hammil, a tailor ; Leonard, a smith ; 
Rogers, an English musician, and the sword or dancing 



ir 

master, Torfisaii or Torpliicen. Among these was a James 
Kamsay of Balmain. At the time that the higher nobility, 
exasperated by this, and because James III. had caused his 
brother, the Earl of Mar, to be murdered — a fate which the 
other brother, the Duke of Albany, escaped only with great 
difficulty — they fell upon the King in the camp at Lawdor 
(Lauder) Bridge, 1483, and in his own chamber hanged all 
but one of the favorites before his eyes. Only Ramsay es- 
caped, because James covered the young man with his own 
body, whom the King afterwards raised to the connnand of 
hisLife-Guards, and to be the first [titular] Earl of Bothwell. 
He appears to have fallen with his King at Bannockburn. 
[Another error, he lived to be favored by James lY., but 
the Hepburns were too strong for him, and he showed his 
bad blood by turning out an accomplished sj^y for the 
English king, Henry YII. ] To his descendants, [all wrong 
again] however, remained the title and dignity and deep- 
rooted hatred, coming, indeed, from this unforgotten cir- 
cumstance." 

To the hatred of the Hepburns of Hales, become so 
mighty through their own merits and the confidence of 
their sovereign, must be added the religious quarrel which 
aroused the spirits of all. Bothwell was a Protestant. He 
refused to hear mass with the Queen. He was married to 
his first wife after the Protestant form only ; but the next 
time, to Mary, after both rites, the Protestant, to satisfy his 
own convictions, and the Catholic to gratify her. He 
3 



18 

was not, however, a zealot, and by no means a fanatic, as, 
in those times of excitement in regard to religious belief, 
was demanded among such a hot-headed people as the 
Scotch. That he did not make common cause with the 
"Lords of the Congregation," 1559-'60, in opposition to 
the government, i. e., against the Queen-mother-Dowager, 
Mary of Guise, and had not sustained their revolt, so thor- 
oughly justified according to their ideas, his loyalty was in 
their eyes, of itself, an unpardonable treachery in a Pro- 
testant to the cause of religion. 

But why did Both well separate himself from his com- 
rades in creed ? Purely from loyalty to the monarch, — a 
peculiarity certainly which made him appear as a white 
CEOW in Scotland, where the mighty "Bonds" of the 
nobles had for centuries kept down every attempt to ele- 
vate the power of the sovereign. This simply confirms 
the historical fact that the Feudal nobility always made 
" Bonds " against the royal power ; the nobility by Patent 
always with it, sustaining the sovereign. The latter must 
take this course, and it was only a pity that, there (in 
Scotland), and at this time, the nobility by Patent (!) was 
represented by only a single example of unvarying loyal- 
ty — Bothwell. 

" While these important changes [in the relative influence 
of the feudal nobility] were taking place among her neighbors, 
the condition of ScotUmd remained unaltered. Her nobles had 
never been weakened, like those of England, by the wars of a 



19 

disputed succession, and her towns had as yet acquired no po- 
litical importance. It was in vain that, during this and the suc- 
ceeding century, the most strenuous efforts were made by the 
Scottish kings to break down the overgrown power of these 
great vassals. In all these struggles the latter proved victorious ; 
and, of the first five Jameses, no fewer than three perished the 
victims of aristocratic anarchy. The division of nearly the whole 
of the Church lands among a body of men already too powerful 
was a necessary result of the Reformation ; and, from the death 
of James V. until the union of the two crowns, Scotland was 
oppressed by a nobility the most rapacious and corrupt that 
probably ever existed.'''' \^This was the period of Mary Stuart'' s 
short reign and long misfortunes.'] (" Mary Queen of Scots 
and her Accusers," by John Hosack. Edinburgh and London, 
1870.) 

' ' VYitb remarkable fidelity he (Bothwell) stood by the 
royal house ; throughout life he had been the deeply 
attached servant of the dynasty." (Jebb, " The Innocence 
of the Queen," L, 463.) Blackwood confirms this: "At 
every period of his life a very faithful servant of the crown ; 
* * * his constancy and fidelity in being almost the 
only one among all the nobles of her kingdom who has never 
varied nor failed in the duties of a good subject, &c." — Her- 
rera : ' ' This man was always very loyal and faithful to the 
crown." To this he adds: "A generous man, and one 
of worth, but at the same time bold, proud and prompt to 
execute whatever action fell to his part." Even Robertson 
calls him "remarkably true to duty," — "extraordinarily 
so" in fact. It is yet more worthy of notice that no one has 



20 

drawn from all those admissions tlie inevitably correct 
conclusion as to his character. Was he faithful to duty 
from selfishness ? No ! for the only thanks he got often 
consisted in banishment. He was faithful as from a sense 
of duty. Loyalty and constancy, however, are certainly not 
the accompanying characteristics of an abandoned character; 
and, if the other rebel lords were greater politically than 
he, as men, morally, they certainly were inferior to him. 
What must appear a mei'it to the unprejudiced, was the 
worst of crimes to the interested ; and, when it becomes 
apparent that it was just his faithfulness to duty which 
drew down upon Bothwell the greatest hatred, this must 
throw a great weight, in his favor, into the scale. There 
were at this epoch only two parties. Catholics and French 
and Royalists appear to be identical. So, on the other 
hand, with Protestants and Republicans, the English party. 
Bothwell was the only Protestant who supported the Royal- 
ist party, yet without yielding the first place to the French ; 
and he did this not sim^jly from loyalty, but also 
from a ripened conviction that the modern State stands 
above parties (!), and should not be made to dejDend on reli- 
gious fluctuations (!) Thus he occupied an imjDortant but 
isolated position ; and along with his loyalty and his liberal 
ideas, it may have been to the Scottish nobles the most 
unpardonable sin, that he was powerful and determined 
enough to attempt to check or control them by the power 
of the State. His efibrts only failed because he had no 



21 

party beliind him, since the Catholics regarded him with 
mistrust and did not comprehend his motives, and of these 
he was himself perhaps unconscious. He dreamed of be- 
ing in himself a separate ]3artj, and that idea hastened his 
fall. Consequently, since only Catholics and Protestants, 
English or French, wrote his history, he could only have 
had his enemies for judges ; and it was precisely his unde- 
niable virtues as a governor, his statesmanlike ideas, which 
procured for him the measureless hate of those aristocratic 
tyrants. Both well was a Bismark, but appeared too soon. 
If any one wishes to obtain a general view of the varied 
life of this remarkable man, it becomes necessary, and 
especially so, first, to seek for information in the only full 
contemporary account, that of Buchanan ; but it is striking 
that this author nowhere mentions Bothwell's age. If 
this be carelessness, the Index to his book will assist us. 
There stands correctly "James Hepburn, Earl of Both well, 
given into custody, p. 513 ; Banished to France and Eng- 
land, 523 ; Eival of the Earl of Lennox, 542 ; Recalled 
from France by the Queen, 641 :" When was that ? The 
Earl of Bothwell was imprisoned, together with Robert 
Maxwell, Walter Scott, Mark Carr, in the year 1530, by 
James Y.; — and, in 1537, banished. The Comes Leviniceis, 
the Earl of Lennox, the father of Darnley, and father-in-law 
to Mary. In what was he a rival to this nobleman ? In 
suing for the hand of the widow of James Y., the Queen 
Dowager, Mary (of Guise). This is in the year 1545, but 



22 

Mary Stuart was born in 1542 ; so Botliwell, when lie was 
imprisoned 1530, must have been about twenty years, and 
at the time of his wooing Mary, fifty-seven years old. In 
fact, an otherwise very painstaking and skillful writer, 
Keralio, depends on these dates and facts in order to show 
the impossibility of a love aifair between the tM^o — Both- 
well and Mary Stuart. If the figures were only correct ! 
How ? Cannot one trust Buchanan, who, as a contempo- 
rary, knew well the persons in question? Yes, if he had 
not confounded our James Botliwell with his father. Earl 
Patrick Botliwell, and ascribed the M^hole story of the 
latter to the former. This seems incredible, and yet it is 
undeniable. Kobert Douglass' " Peerage of Scotland," 
I., 228, says "James, Fourth Earl of Botliwell, was served 
heir to his father, 3d November, 1556 ; his father died five 
weeks, or thereabouts, preceding. Queen Mary describes 
him (James) as in his very youth at his first entry into this 
realm, immediately after the decease of his father." "What 
opinion, after this, can any critic entertain of the credibil- 
ity of Buchanan ? Yet many have fallen victims to his 
error; for example, Robertson, (L, 50, 87,) speaks of an 
Earl Botliwell without saying that it is the father, not the 
son. 

The grandfather of our Earl James, that is Adam, 
Second Earl of Bothwell, fell on Flodden-field, the 13th 
August, 1513, at an early age, for he was married only in 
August, 1511. Thus the third Earl of Bothwell, Patrick, 



must liave been born in 1512 or 1513, and at the time of his 
death, in 1556, forty-four years old. The life of this man 
seems to have been, if possible, more full of mutations than 
that of his son. Even in regard to his education there 
was a contest. This could not have occasioned the best 
results. A lawless time prevailed. At eighteen years he 
(Patrick, the father) was already a prisoner. At twenty- 
^hree years of age he was banished for twenty years. This, 
however, did not last long, and he was speedily back 
again, since, 1st August, 1539, he was again banished for 
an indefinite time from Scotland, England and France ! 
This drove him into the arms of England. In 1549, he 
(Patrick, the father, not James, the son) received an Eng- 
lish pension of three thousand crowns. Hosack, Mary's ad- 
vocate, demonstrates such a charge cannot be brought against 
Patrick's son, James, the champion of the Maries, mother 
and daughter, and the lover and husband of the latter. 
He pronounces, (I., 296,) Bothwell "a stranger to fear," 
but "not proof against remorse." A man who knows no 
fear, and yet can rejDent, is better than most men. The 
widowed Queen, Mary of Guise, called Patrick back to 
Scotland about 1545, when he came forward, together with 
Lennox, as a suitor for her hand, and was an enemy of the 
English party. Then again, a third time banished, he, Pat- 
rick, was yet again recalled in 1553. His amnesty, on the 
26th March, 1554, is noticed in the Privy Seal Record. He 
faithfully served her (the Queen) ; was one of the Lords 



24 

who handed the Regency over to her in place of the inca- 
pable Duke of Chatelherault ; sat in the Parliament of 
1554-5, which ratified it, and was her Lord Lieutenant of 
the Borders, in which capacity he is often mentioned ; and, 
as has been said, died 1556. Whether this changeful life 
was only a consequence of the disorderly times and an un- 
governed spirit, or of a dangerous character, is not evi- 
dent. Baseness, at least, does not appear to be proved 
against Patrick, third Earl of Both well. Chalmers (11. , 
202) indeed calls him " one of the most profligate men of 
a most corrupt age," yet without giving any reasons or 
proofs. In no case is this to be attributed to the son, 
James, whose life might be called monstrous if one com- 
mingle it with that of the father. One thing, however, 
must have kindled the inextinguishable hate of the Pro- 
testants toward the father, Patrick. George Wishart, the 
teacher of the renowned Knox, and one of the foremost of 
the revered, prophet-like Reformers, was set upon by Earl 
Patrick, in the house of Lord Ormiston, and, in spite of a 
promise to take Wishart to his own castle, Earl Patrick 
surrendei-ed Wishart to his enemies. This was in 1546. 
Bothwell delivered him to Cardinal Beaton, who caused 
him to be burned at the stake, 1st March, 1546. The ver- 
dict on Earl Patrick's conduct may be divided. Knox and 
Mac Crie maintain that Earl Patrick broke his word of 
honor. Hetherington (46) assures us to the contrary, that 
the Cardinal compelled him to act as he did ; but all seem 



25 

to overlook the fact that he was Sheriff of the county in 
which it hapj^ened, and, thus obligated, he was impera- 
tively bound to undertake the arrest. In no way, how- 
ever, can any blame attach to James, as Rudloff(I., 54) 
maintains, who, if he were present, Rudloff charges, could 
have been only thirteen years old at the time, since the 
marriage of his father, Patrick, with Agnes Sinclair, 
daughter of Henry, Lord Sinclair, cannot well be placed 
before 1532. Chalmers makes it two years earlier, 1530. 
This, however, is incredible, on account of the extreme 
youth of Earl Patrick, and because at this very time he 
was in prison for a length of time. 

Robert Douglas assigns these events to about 1535. 
Accordingly, even the year of Earl James' birth is very 
uncertain, and has also been the object of violent contro- 
versy. It cannot well have been before 1532, nor after 
1536 (?), as his father was then in exile. Whether James 
Earl Both well's sister Jane, who, in 1562, married the 
Prior of Coldinghame (bastard son of James V., who died in 
1563), and, in 1566, John of Caithness (who died in 1577), 
and, finally, Archibald Douglass — was older or younger than 
her brother, is not evident. It seems the least inaccurate 
to assume 1535 as the year of Both well's birth, and thus at 
the death of his father he was twenty-one years old ; "he 
was in his very youth." Schiern (3 and 7) says he was 
born in 1536 or 1537, and in his nineteenth or twentieth 
year when his father died. 
4 



26 

The education of the fourth Earl, James, was conducted 
under his grand-uncle, the Bishop of Murray. Buchanan 
denounces this man as "ignorant and without conscience, 
and given up to all kinds of lust." "What virtues, for- 
sooth, were to be expected in a man brought up in the 
very palace of a Bishop of Murray, that is in by far the 
most corrupt centre of all — amid wine and loose women, 
among the vilest managers of their (?'. e., the Papists) dis- 
solute discipline." How far the measureless passion of 
Buchanan distorts things in tliis connection it is hard to 
say. Bishoj) Murray was not worse nor better than most 
of his peers. Pleasure loving, fond of pomp, and certainly 
not without cultivation, he surely would not have withheld 
the latter from his nephew, and the documents from Both- 
well's hand prove this. The Scottish letter, which is still 
preserved in the Register Office at Edinburgh, is as well 
composed and published as any other of the time. Teulet 
prints, as his, a letter to Charles IX. of France, of the 
27th May, 1567, and one of 12th November, 1567, to the 
same from Denmark ; besides two meinorials of his to 
Frederick XL, King of Denniark, of the 5t]i of January 
and the 13th of January, 1568 ; justifying himself. The 
sense and clearness of both are as marked as the excellent 
French in which they are written. These papers, since Earl 
James was in prison (under restraint ?), are in his own 
hand. Undoubtedly his education would be nothing more 
than that probably appropriate to a gentleman and knight. 



27 

Yet in tliis lie surpassed most of his contemporaries, and 
lie had, by repeated sojourns in France, sufficient oppor- 
tunity to cultivate his original inclination for the polish of 
that nation. When and where he, in his youth, "roamed 
about as a pirate," as Buchanan says, is not perceptible. 
Subsequent to the restoration of his father, 1554, he seems 
to have been with the latter, and to have received his edu- 
cation, with the further advantage of practical lessons in 
statesmanship afforded by the influential position occupied 
by his parent. Moreover, as he had an inclination for 
hand-to-hand encounters, there was no want of opportun- 
ity to gratify his inclination in this respect amid the anar- 
chical' condition of the "Borderers," whom, properly 
speaking, only he and his father brought into anything 
like order, and whom it was impossible for any chief to 
manage except he was manifestly endowed with courage 
and personal bravery. Thus James, the Fourth Earl of 
Bothwell, was already a prominent person at the time of 
his father's death, by which he not only inherited rich feu- 
dal fiefs, but the hereditary dignities of Sheriff of Berwick, 
Haddington and Edinburgh ; of Baillie of Lauderdale, 
with the Castles of Hales and Crichtoun, and especially, in 
addition, with the office of Lord High Admiral of Scotland, 
which was granted as hereditary to his grandfather, Adam, 
in 1511, by James TV. Undoubtedly he would not, if 
circumstances permitted, delay to distinguish himself at 
sea in this capacity, perhaps in combats with pirates ; but 



28 

to call an hereditary Higli Admiral "a pirate," is what 
could only be done by a Buchanan. 

Thus born and endowed, he was early in life the rich- 
est man in the south of Scotland after the Duke of Chatel- 
herault, the head of the Hamiltons, and no doubt lived 
accordingly, not M'ithout show, folly, frivolity and dissipa- 
tion ; but, when Buchanan declares "he grew up there 
with dice and loose women, and so wasted the most ample 
patrimony that, in his penury, he had not a brass farthing, 
the price of a halter," such assertions are more than spite- 
ful — they are untrue. 

The largest part of his (Bothwell's) hereditary estates 
could not have been alienated from him, and we find him, 
up to the time of his banishment, in unbroken possession 
of his properties, without its being necessary for the Queen 
to reinstate him in possession of them. Banished he was 
several times, but nevei- deprived of his dignities. May 
not this allusion be, like others, to his father Patrick, third 
Earl, whose jDOSsessions were confiscated up to 1554. Still 
Randolph also chimes in with the exjDression, "a naked, 
good-for-nothing beggar, whose property has been eaten 
up, even to a Portugal piece ;" very funny ! but unfounded. 
Something like envy appears to crojD out here. Bothwell 
retained his jewels to the last ; until he lost them in his 
flight to Denmark, in August - September, 1567. 

That he was not only the richest man, but one, in the 
south of Scotland, by inheritance, but also early in life distin- 



29 

gulshed by efficiency and ability as a ruler, is shown by the 
Queen Dowager's naming him, at twenty- three years old, 
her Lord Lieutenant of the Borders, and Keeper of the very 
important castle "Hermitage," one of the most material 
and responsible positions, for which especial abilities were 
needed. Knox, Robei-tson, Laing are in error when they 
put Bothwell's first appearance in the Privy Council, and 
as Lord Lieutenant, in 1565 or 1566. He was appointed 
to these positions, for the first time, as early as 1558, 
during the violent War of the Protestant Lords of the 
Congregation against the Queen Dowager ; secondly, 
during Murray's Kebellion, 1565, and, also, afterwards, 
several times. Under him served Lord Hume, or Home, 
as Warden of the Eastern Borders, Kerr of Cessford, of 
the Middle Borders, and Sir John Maxwell of the Western. 
His position was that of an almost irresponsible alter 
EGO of the Queen Regent. 

He had already, and previously, taken his seat in the 
Parliament, and, on the 14th December, 1557, signed the 
Commission for the marriage of Mary Stuart with the 
Dauphin (Francis II.) The second time, 29th Novem- 
ber, 1558, he officiated in opening the Parliament as 
Sheriff of Edinburghshire. 

He was not undeserving of the trust put in him. 

" In some of the wild Border troubles, the too famous Both- 
well," according to Sir Walter Scott, " is said to have given 
proofs of his courage, which was at other times very question- 



30 

able." He was Lord of Liddesdale, and Keeper of the Hermit- 
age Castle. "About this time the Scottish Borderers seem to 
have acquired some ascendancy over their soutliern neighboi's." 
(Strype, Vol. III.) * * * In 1559 peace was again restored." 

Holinsbed's popular Clironicle contains an account of 
a dangerous and successful cavalry incursion made by him, 
1558, into England. In this instance he was supported 
by the "Congregation." 

The unfortunate Mary, in her famous "Apology," says " that 
in the weiris against Ingland, he gaif proof of his valyentnes, 
courage, and gude conduct ;" and praises him especially for 
subjugating "the rebellious subjectis inhabiting the cuntreis 
lying ewest the marches of Ingland." {Keith, p. 388.) " He 
appears actually to have defeated Sir Henry Percy in a skir- 
mish, called the Raid of Haltwellswire." 

At the time of the Peace Negotiations at Chateau Cam- 
bresis, April, 1559, be bad a conference witb tlie Earl of 
Nortlinmberland on quieting tbe Border conflicts, and, in 
August, 1559, be sat as one of tbe Commissioners witb 
Sir Eicbard Maitland and Sir Walter Kerr. Tbe English 
Wardens did not like bim. Tbe Earl of Bedford and 
otbers allow tbe ngliness of tbeir own personal enmity to 
sbow itself in tbeir remarks. This, bowever, does bim no 
discredit, for bis enei^getic representation of bis own 
country was tbe cause of it. * 



* " It is worthy of note that Darnley should never, so far as we 
know, have exhibited any jealousy or even dislike of Bothwell. 
That nobleman had not acquired so great an ascendancy at Court, and 



31 

The Protestant (English) party (even after peace, Eng- 
land secretly supported the Scottish " Congregation ") was 
especially embittered by a decidedly lucky stroke of Both- 
well. When, in October, 1559, Elizabeth sent to the 
Rebel Lords, 4000 crowns, by John Cockburn of Ormiston, 
a very essential and much desired subsidy, it was Both- 
well who snatched it away and handed over the money to 
the Qneen Dowager. Great was the wrath of the "Con- 
gregation." The Earl of Arran and Lord James Stuart 
(the Earl of Murray) seized, as indemnity for the money, 



was BO much hated on that account, that a plot had been already 
formed for his overthrow. Mary has been much blamed for the favor 
which she now showed for this celebrated person, but the explana- 
tion is simple and obvious. Bothwell was the only one of the great 
nobles of Scotland icho, from first to last, had remained faithful both to 
her mother and 7wr self . We have no proof of the charge made against 
him by the unhappy Arran ; and, whatever may have been his follies or 
his crimes, no man could say that James Hepburn was either a hypo- 
crite or a traitor. Though staunch to the religion which he professed, 
he never made it a cloak for his ambition ; though driven into exile and 
reduced to extreme poverty by the malice of his enemies, he never, so far 
as we know, accepted of a foreign bribe. In an age when political 
fidelity was the rarest of virtues, we need not be surprised that his 
sovereign, at this time, trusted and rewarded him. We may add, that 
although the common people admired his liberality and courage. Both- 
well, among his brother nobles, had no friends. His chief reliance, 
next to the favor of the Queen, was placed upon his Border vassals 
and dependants — men whose lawless habits rendered them impatient of 
repose, and who were ever ready, at the bidding of their lord, to em- 
bark in any enterprise, however dangerous or desperate." — " Mary, 
Queen of Scots, and her Accusers," by John Hosack. Edinburgh and 
London, 1870. Vol. I., pp. 155, 156. 



32 

Botliwell's castle at Crichtoun while lie was with the 
Queen Regent, bnt they did not hold it long. Thej, 
however, never forgave him for this "lucky hit." That 
they hated him for it is easily to be conceived, but that 
it should be used as a reproach against him, and as such 
recorded by serious writers, arises from inexcusable ma- 
liciousness or ignorance. Even if he had taken the money 
without authority in the course of a Civil War, it was 
simply by the "Eight of War." Should he, the Lord 
Lieutenant of the Queen Dowager, have allowed the con- 
tribution of an enemy to pass into the hands of her rebel- 
lious foes. This, indeed, would have shown a want of 
fidelity to his position. Posterity must consider as faith- 
ful service that which contemporaries attributed to him as 
robbery. He was indeed a Protestant, but he set his 
Loyality above his Creed. It is a pity that it is not known 
M''hen and where he became a Protestant, since his father — 
possibly in his presence — had at a former date taken 
Wishart, the Reformer, prisoner and turned him over to 
the Cardinal Primate, by whom he was cruelly executed at 
the stake. Our Botliwell was by no means a zealot. Bu- 
chanan says, " and who between the factions of different re- 
ligions, a despiser of both, pretended to be in favor of 
either." This is false in many particulars. He did not 
feign Roman Catholicism, not even in France. He would 
not even do the Queen — whom he so ardently loved — the 
pleasure of hearing the Mass with her ; yet, by no means, 



33 

from fear of the Protestants, whom he was always dis- 
posed to snub. 

It is not necessary to consider him a Freethinker, still 
less an Atheist : only there was too much disputation for 
him, and it is often the mark of an energetic, vigorous, 
practical character to undervalue mere distinctions [of 
form] in religion. That he, as an avowed Protestant, 
steadily, sometimes singly and alone, supported the royal, 
Catholic cause, must win for him respect for his loyalty, for 
his liberality of ideas and for his statesmanlike views. 

In December, 1559, he marched at the head, of eight 
hundred French and Scottish troops of the Queen from 
Edinburgh to Sterling. He received more important com- 
missions when, in the middle of May, 1560, the Queen Dow- 
ager — while the Civil War was at its most dangerous crisis — 
sent him over to France, for assistance. That he was 
not forced to flee the country on this occasion is demon- 
strated by his letter from his reconquered castle, Crich- 
toun. But, before his arrival, the Queen Dowager died, 
and the Duke of Chatelherault assumed the Eegency. 
Bothwell appeared at the Court at Paris as a faithful ad- 
herent of the Scottish Crown and a most influential noble- 
man of the first rank in the kingdom, and likewise as a 
fiery, yet merry youngster, whom ^^robably only a Bran- 
tome would style " the most ugly " — one who was already 
much talked about and was graciously received at the 
French Court. The King, Charles IX., appointedBothwell 
5 



34 

as his Chamberlain. Mary Stuart certainly called upon 
him frequently for advice, because she could find no other 
counsellor so experienced in Scottish affairs. 

Important businesses of state were the subjects discussed 
between them, so carefully concealed as to escape the eyes 
of the astute English envoy, Throckmorton, who was never- 
theless sharply watching Bothwell. Mary sent by his ad- 
vice four Commissioners, the Lairds Craigmillar, Ogilvie, 
Leslie and Lumsden, to Scotland. Bothwell himself has- 
tened thither also, unexpectedly, in Kovember, 1560, by 
way of Flanders, probably to escape the English spies. This 
movement was made in order to form a legally constituted 
government composed of Seven of the most powerful Mag- 
nates, selected from difterent parties, of whom any three 
together, could assemble the Parliament. This was an 
attempt at a compromise, but the attempt was wrecked. 
The Duke of Chatelherault and James Stuart [Murray] 
were not willing to let slip from their grasp the power 
they had already obtained. Moreover the eldest son of 
the former, the Earl of Arran, was an implacable enemy 
of Bothwell. This condition of things decided Bothwell 
to go back again to France and to return only with the 
Queen, August, 1561. This fact is important ! 

Although after her return to Scotland, Lord James 
Stuart [Murray], the Queen's brother, was the chief director 
of the government, she raised — ahnost in exact accordance 
with the above plan of Bothwell, by an ordinance of 6th 



35 

September, 1561 — all the nobles previously designated to 
be Members of the Privy Comicil. Tlie first point was to 
restore peace. This the Queen had very much at heart. 
Bothwell allowed himself to become reconciled with the 
Catholic Lord Seaton. At the same time Lord James and 
Cockburn of Ormistomi, his old enemies, became friends 
with Bothwell. It was only with Arran he could not 
succeed in effecting an amicable arrangement. Arran, 
like his father, as incaj^able as he was ambitious, weak, 
vain and boastful — since he stood next to the crown 
through birth and position — flattered himself that he might 
win the hand of the Queen. He had the fantastical folly — 
although he was the only person in the kingdom who did 
so — to set himself up in opposition, by an open protest, to 
Mary' s free exercise of her religion. If he afterwards be- 
came deranged, a predisposition to loss of mind had, thus, 
showed itself at an earlier date. JSTo sensible person 
would make this, Arran' s enmity, a subject of reproach 
to Bothwell. The Queen took all possible pains to induce 
Arran to become reconciled with him ; and Randolph, him- 
self, allows that Bothwell was placable, but Arran "showed 
a refractory spirite and obstinately resisted the efforts 
of the Queen and Council to produce peace." On the 
2d February, 1562, Mary compelled peace. It did not 
last for any length of time. By the end of March, Arran 
all at once, through Knox, charged Bothwell and his 
(Arran' s) own youngest brother, Gawin Hamilton, Prior 



36 

of Kilwinning, witli having conspired along with himself 
to carry off the Queen to Dunbarton Castle (which be- 
longed to his father Lennox) and to kill her, likewise 
Lord James [Murray] and the influential Secretary of 
State, Maitland.* All agree that, immediately after this. 



* " James Stuart, being now regarded as a Person who had pre- 
serv'd his Sister from a Surprise whicli miglit have been fatal to her, 
usurped, by this Reputation, and tlie Assistance of that Faction, of 
which lie was the Chief, an Authority over her little differing from that 
of a Tyrant — he assumed the disposal of all Posts and offices of Trust ; 
and, under the pretence of serving her, left her not the power to serve 
herself — She could, she must, in fine, do nothing now without consult- 
ing him — her Guards were Creatures of his own, whom he had placed 
about her, not so much for her Safety, as to be so many spies on her 
Actions. 

" The first Use he made of his sudden Change of Fortune, was this : 
The County of Murray, which had been in the possession of the Earl 
of Huntley ever since the Death of a Prince to whom the Queen was 
immediate Heiress, he got into his Hands, and took upon him the 
Name of it ; therefore we shall thenceforwards call him Earl of 
Murray. But the Earl of Huntley, who had held the County, by the 
Queen's Courtesy, for a considerable time, could not bear the taking it 
away without great Resentment. As he was not the only Person who 
felt the Effects of this new made Earl's Covetousness and Desire of 
Power, he had a great number of Confederates against him. The Earl 
of Hamilton, who, being a Prince of the Blood, cou'd not choose but 
think a larger share of the Government ought to have been invested in 
his hands, rather than in the others ; and, for that reason, as well as 
the difference of Parties, conceiv'd a deadly Hate to him : joining 
therefore with the Earl of Huntley, a Plot was lain between them to 
ruin Murray, and then seize on the Queen, and compel her to marry 
young Gordon or Arran, leaving her the choice which of them she 
would take. Both these Earls vowing to each other, that all thought 
of Animosity or Rivalship should be laid by, and each should afford 



37 

Arran became insane. Whether he perpetrated the act 
from derangment or from malice, or with the design of 
advancing himself, nothing is proved. The accused denied 



his utmost power to the destruction of their common Enemy. In this 
Conspiracy soon entered himself, James Hepburn, Earl of Both- 
well, who, by his Extravagancies and Debaucheries, having spent 
his Estate, which had been very large, had no way of recruiting him- 
self but by Change of Government and publick Disturbances. He had 
once oflfer'd Murray to kill the Earl of Hamilton with his own Hand ; 
but Murray, whether he mistrusted the Event, or did not believe it 
practicable, would not hearken to it : Huntley, being a Man of much 
more Policy than Hamilton, would not appear openly in the Affair, 
but, knowing the Disposition and Principles of Bothwell, said to 
him one day, when they were alone, that if he would make the same 
Proposal to Hamilton as he had done to Murray, he would not find 
him so hard to be worked u])on. Bothwell, who was glad of an 
opportunity of doing mischief any way, readily embraced the Pro- 
posal ; and, going immediately to Hamilton, represented to him the 
Injuries he had received from Murray, who had aimed at setting 
aside the Succession ; that there was nothing that he might not in 
time bring about, having in his hands the greatest part of the Queen's 
Authority, which, with the Assistance of the Protestants, and the 
favor of the English Queen, might enable him to subvert a Govern- 
ment much better settled than that of Scotland : He alledg'd that the 
Design which Murray had in preventing the Queen from marrying, 
was, that if she died without Issue, he was confident of succeeding 
her. In a word, he told him the only Way toward this Blow was to 
kill him ; and proffer'd himself to be the Executioner of what he pro- 
posed. 

" The Earl of Hamilton gave into this immediately : He knew, that 
on the Ruin or Death of Murray, not only his Right of Succession, 
but Ms Son^s Marriage with the Queen depended. He had been often 
heard to boast, that the Family of the Stuarts, whether legitimate or 
not, ought to be preferr'd to the Hamiltons ; and this was sufficient to 
stir up the Revenge of a man less ambitious than the Earl. He con- 



38 ' 

tlie charge and nothing indicates their guilt. Keverthe- 
less Lord James seized the opportunity to throw the 
objects of his personal enmity, among them Bothwell, 
into prison. Bothwell asked for a hearing. He received 
none. After being six weeks confined in the Castle of St. 
Andrews (which belonged to Lord James), and then in 
Edinburgh Castle, he escaped from the latter on the 28th 
of August to his own strong mountain Castle of Hermitage, 
in Liddesdale, on the borders of England. Here he kept 
quiet until the fall of Huntley, in October of the same year, 
made it dangerous for him to remain there any longer. 
He put to sea from North Berwick— his enemies say, un- 



sulted with BothweIjL, therefore, on such Measures for his Death, as 
he could not possibly have escaped the Stroke, had not the Design 
been discovered by the most unguess'd at means. The Plot was laid to 
destroy him [Mui-ray] when he went a Buck-hunting with the Queen in 
a Forest near Faulkland Castle, in which he then resided. Nothing 
could be more Easy than the Execution of the Project, because that 
part of the Country were all entirely devoted to the Family of the 
Hamiltons ; and would be so far from revenging the Death of a Man 
so hated by them, that they would readily take up arms to oppose 
whatever might be attempted by his Friends against the Authors of it. 
But Providence, for the punishment of others, who, if not equally 
guilty, were not also without their share of Crimes, had yet work for 
this consummate villain [Murray], which was, as yet, unfinish'd, and 
screened from the impending Blow this Minister of Vengeance." — 
" Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots : Being the Secret History of her Life, 
and the Real Causes of all her Misfortunes. Containing a Relation of 
many Transactions in her Reign; never yet Published in any Collection. 
Translated from the French. [Rare.] The Second Edition. London : 
Printed for D. Browne, Jr., at The Black Swan, without Temple Bar ; 
S. Chapman, at the Angel in Pall Mall, and J. Woodman and D. Lyon, 
in Russel-Street, Convent Garden, 1726." pp. 27-31. 



39 

doubtedly as a "pirate," but forgot in their malice that he 
was Lord High Admiral of the realm, and got under sail 
in that capacity. Having been driven on to Holy Island* 
formerly Lindesfarne, a peninsula insulated at high 
water, nine miles S. S. E. of Berwick-on-Tweed — he was 
arrested by English officers, brought to London, and, 
without any reasons shown, detained there as a prisoner 
until January, 1564 (Sir Randolph to Cecil, 22d January, 
1563, in which the British Agent confesses that "Murray 
(Lord James) and others intrigued with him to have 
Bothwell detained in England, of which he is a determined 
enemy." There is no trace of proof that any one re- 
proached him, at this time, with "piracy." If they had 



* " Lindisfarne, an isle on the coast of Northumberland, was called 
Holy Island from the sanctity of its ancient monastery, and from its 
having been the episcopal seat of the See of Durham during the early 
ages of British Christianity. A succession of holy men held that 
oflSce, but their merits were swallowed up in the superior fame of St. 
Cuthbert, who was sixth Bishop of Durham, and who bestowed the 
name of his ' patrimony ' upon the extensive property of the see. The 
ruins of the monastery upon Holy Island betoken great antiquity. 
The arches are, in general, strictly Saxon ; and the pillars which 
support them short, strong and massy. In some places, however, 
there are pointed windows, which indicate that the building has been 
repaired at a period long subsequent to the original foundation. The 
exterior ornaments of the building, being of a light, sandy stone, have 
been wasted as described in the text. Lindisfarne is not properly an 
island, but rather, as the venerable Bede has termed it, a semi-island ; 
for, although surrounded by the sea at full tide, the ebb leaves the 
sands dry between it and the opposite coast of Northumberland, from 
which it is about three miles distant." — Scott's Poetry, Vol. VII., p. 94. 
" Marmion," Canto II., 1, Note 1. 



40 

found the slightest shadow of proof to sustain such a 
charge they would more than willingly have brought it 
forward. Finally, January, 1564, (the Scottish Govern- 
ment) yielded to the pressing reclamations of his mother, 
Agnes Sinclair — who sej)arated from Earl Patrick (father 
of James) Bothwell, March, 1554, possessed uj) to her 
death, 1573, the Barony of Moreham, and thence was known 
as the "Lady of Moreham," and retained the liveliest affec- 
tion for her only son, James — and, through Mary Stuart, 
compelled the liberation of Bothwell. He now went directly 
to France, where he experienced, to say the very least, 
the most friendly reception, for he was appointed, by 
Charles IX., Captain of the Scottish Body-Guard which had 
the peculiar care of tlie persons of the Kings of France. 
The Castle "Hermitage," of which he (Bothwell) was Cas- 
tellan, was handed over to Robert Elliot ; nothing else 
belonging to him was confiscated. (Consult J. W. de P.'s 
"James Hepbukn, Earl of Bothwell," United Service^ 
September, 1882, 328-332.) 

From this story, as well as others, even an enemy, if 
he is honest, can extract nothing criminal against Both- 
well : whc)m unjust calumniations, founded on the declara- 
tion — afterwards recalled — of a weak-minded person, 
drove for more than two years into exile, into prison, and 
into banishment, and even out of the favor of his royal 
mistress. This occurrence is distorted, more than all 
others, by Raumer, who bases his statement, however, 



41 

on the invariably always self-contradictions of the unreli- 
able and prejudiced Randall, miscalled Randolph. It is 
false, when the latter writes to Cecil, on the 31st March, 
1562, "this day the Earl of Botliwell, with three others, 
w^aylaid, for the second time. Lord Ormistoun. In the 
first place, how conld Randolph note down what was 
occurring on the very same day, when it was taking j^lace 
at a distance — miles away. Secondly, Botliwell was at this 
very date already in prison at St. Andrews. Thus it 
appears that this waylaying of any pei-son, existed solely 
in Randolph's wicked imagination. Furthermore, it is 
false that, three days later, Botliwell (2d April) wrote in 
the way of reconciliation to Arraii, and it is false that they 
lived on the best terms with each other ; for, at the very 
time, they both were in conhnement. They were, however, 
unwillingly reconciled on the 20th February, and when, at 
a later period, Randolph declares "Arran assures me that 
the whole {l. e., the conspiracy) was imaginary.'''' What 
else than "-imaginary" can any suppose it to have been, and 
in what way was BothwelFs behavior in regard to it im- 
projDer. At length Botliwell' s sojourn in France became 
too protracted for his feelings, and he petitioned for liberty 
to return home, or else for the means to live abroad, 
which, it appears, were not allowed to reach him. Even 
if it were true — as David Pringle, his servant, wished to 
prove — thafr he "has spoken dishonorably of the Queen, 
and threatened to kill Murray and Maitland " (this 
6 



42 

again is only on tlie donbtfnl witness of Randolph, 15th 
Marcli, 1565) ; and such words are not inevitably subject to 
an evil construction for a man of his times, under such cir- 
cumstances of aggravation. Gross injuries had been done 
him, and every justice was denied him. When, finally, 
in March, 1565, after three years, without permission, but 
in open day, he returned to Scotland, this action on his 
part speaks sufiiciently both for his boldness and con- 
sciousness of innocence. He openly visited his mother. 
Although Murray laid snares for him, Bothwell maintained 
himself in the Castle of Hermitage, retaken by him, where 
he kept up a large retinue and force. However, he pro- 
mised the Queen to present himself before the Tribunal in 
Edinburgh on the 4th of May ; but his enemies, Argyle 
and Murray, appeared on the sjjot, on the 1st of May, 
with 4,000 men, and the Queen was obliged to put a stop 
to his coming, far more from ?^\\yAQiy fo'V her oion personal 
safety than fear for that of Bothwell. As Bothwell was 
in even more danger than she, it is no wonder that he did 
not appear, and, being absent, had to allow himself to be 
outlawed. Even in this case, however, he was not en- 
tirely deprived of his estates. No one made this conduct 
(m his part a reproach to him, except his enemies and 
those ignorant of the customs of the country. Nor should 
it be forgotten that the same unrelenting enemies who 
persecuted him throughout life — who on this occasion, hin- 
dered him by force from appearing before the court, and 



43 

profited by his keeping away, were ready, at once, to 
accuse him of the most flagrant contempt of the laws 
when he himself did the same in April, 1567 — when he 
was accused of the murder of Darnley — and he came before 
a similar tribunal accompanied by several thousand adhe- 
rents simply to protect himself. Bothwell, in order to escape 
the snares laid for liim, again put to sea towards the end of 
April, 1565. But, by the 4th July, 1565, Kandolph Writes to 
Cecil, " it is said that the Earl of Bothwell and Lord Seton 
are sent for, which has the appearance of truth." Trust- 
worthy friends were now needed by Mary. Pier public 
union with Darnley was preceded, nearly four months, 
by a custom peculiar to Scotland, termed "handfasting," 
which permitted the familiarities and personal rights of 
espousals without a definite tie. The marriage itself, with 
Darnley, which was at first proposed and then opposed by 
Elizabeth's — in this case, at least — insidious state policy, 
was celebrated on the 29th of July, 1565, against the will 
of Murray, who at once began to organize an insurrection. 
At last — at this crisis — the Queen called to mind the faith- 
ful services of Bothwell and his fearless and ex23erienced 
leadership. On the 5th August, 1565, leave to return home 
was granted to the Earls of Sutherland and Bothwell, to- 
gether with an assurance of amnesty as regarded the escape 
from confinement in Edinburgh Castle. This proved, in 
addition, that the Queen saw into the groundlessness of 
that accusation, and that his estates had not been forfeited. 



44 

On the f)th August, 1565, next day, the Earl of Murray 
was, in turn, declared a rebel. Huntley and Bothwell be- 
came Mary's counsellors. The 10th August, only four days 
later, shows us Bothwell j^resent at the Council at Castle- 
Hill, before Dumfries. He led a part of the army under 
the {nominaJ) chief connnand of King (?) Darnley. If we 
are to believe Kandolph, a quarrel broke out between 
Mary and Darnley concerning him. The latter wished to 
make his father, the Earl of Lennox, Lieutenant-General ; 
Mary desired to create Bothwell such. Mary carried her 
])oint, and rightly; for Bothwell had given the best proofs 
of his fidelity, steadfastness, statesmanship and military 
capacity. In any case, he was, on the 22d October, named 
by both of them, expressly, "Lieutenant-General of all 
the Marches." In this Randolpli may be right. '■'■My 
Lord Bothwell^ for his great virtue., doth now all.'^'' 
After the banishment of Mui-ray, he was appointed, on the 
29th January, 1566, to confer concerning peace with his 
old enemy, the Earl of Bedford, and, on the 8th of Feb- 
ruary, 1566, this latter writes to Cecil, "I despair of 
justice on the Boi'ders while Bothwell is Warden." 
"What sort of justice did he (Bedford) desire, who, for 
eight years, liad fanned up every insurrection on the 
Marches ? This should seem to any unbiassed critic the 
very best proof of Bothwell' s energy and patriotism. 

The Queen now stood higher than ever, and if it is asked 
by means of whom, only through the influence and action 



45 

of BoTHWELL. If she, as many maintain, thought at that 
time of a forcible reinstatement of the Catholic religion, this 
conception of hers mnst have been in the fullest agree- 
ment with the relative j^ossession of real proportions of 
power, recently acquired, in her favor ; all clue to Both well. 
Meanwhile, Bothwell espoused the sister of the Earl 
of Huntley, Jane Gordon, in the Chapel at Ilolyrood, 22d 
February, 156(3. This marriage had also a collateral poli- 
tical object — that of reinstating the Earl of Huntley (son 
of the Earl killed in 1562) in the possessions of his race, 
of which he had been stripped. It is of importance for the 
character of Bothwell, for his liberal ideas, for his inde- 
j)endence, that he decidedly refused the request of the 
Queen, and of his bride, to have the marriage performed 
according to the Roman Catholic rites." 



* The most curious fact in connection with the relations of Mary 
with Botliwell is that Bothwell, — about the time that policy impelled 
him to the marriage of Jane Gordon, 24th February, 1566, — advised and 
induced Mary to restore the Consistorial Court for the trial of cases of 
divorce which had been abolished in 1560. Is not this a sure indication 
that, as soon as Darnley's baseness manifested itself, he was looking for- 
ward to an event — his marriage with Mar^' — when such a court might 
be of efficient service to him in getting rid of the wife he did not want 
and who stood in the way of his plans. 

Fronde, (VIII., 190), sometimes comes in emphatically, with cor- 
roborations, the force of which none but a careful critic can perceive. 
At her marriage with Darnley, or Darley (names were not always writ- 
ten correctly at this date, witness Randolph or Randall), Mary wore 
"a mourning dress of black velvet," "■ loliether simply for a great 'poli- 
tical purpose,'" to show " she was doing an act icJiich in itself she 



4f) 

The scenes of peace, of sucli short coutinuance, were 
as vanishing sunbeams amid the increasing accumulation 
of the storm clouds of the excited parties or factions. The 
ground was already undermined. The 9th March, 1566, 
brought in the assassination of Rizzio. Circumstances be- 
came continually more and more involved. Morton, the 



LOATHED, it is impossible to tell.'" Secretly living as man and wife, or 
mistress and lover, with Darnley, since early in April — meanwhile 
learning more and more to esteem and love, passionately, Bothwell — 
she had arrived at the stage of " loathing " the " long lad" — the silly, 
debauched young fool ; what can demonstrate the truth of this but 
the event— the union with Botlnvell and the catastrophe. 

'■ Darnley's death being resolved, Bothwell began to consider how he was to act 
after it had taken place. He probably made arrangements for various contingencies, 
and trusted to the chapter of accidents, or his own ingenuity, to assist liim in others. 
But there was one thing certain, tliat he never could become the legal husband of Mary, 
so long as he continued united to his own wife, the Lady Jane Gordon. Anticipating, 
therefore, the necessity of a divorce; and aware that the emergency of the occasion 
might not permit of his waiting for all the ordinary forms of law, he used his interest 
with tlie Queen at a time when his real motives were little suspected, to revive tlie 
ancient jurisdiction of the Catholic Consistorial Courts, which had been abolished by 
the Reformed Parliament of 1560, and the ordinary civil judges of commissary courts 
established in their place. In accordance with his request. Mary restored the Arch- 
bishop of St. Andrews, the Primate of Scotland, to the ancient consistorial jurisdiction 
granted him by the canon laws, and discharged the commissaries from the further 
exercise of their offices. Thus Bothwell not only won the friendship of the Archbishop, 
but secured for himself a court where the Catholic plea of consanguinity might be 
advanced, the only plausible pretext he could make use of for annulling his former 
marriage. This proceeding, liowever, in favor of the archbisliop and tlie old faith, 'gave 
great offence to tlie Reformed party, and, when the Primate came from St. Andrews to 
Edinburgh, at the beginning of January, for the purpose of holding his court, his 
authority was very strennously resisted. The Earl of Murray took up the subject, and 
represented to Mary the injury she had done to the true religion. Bothwell, of course, 
used every effort to counteract the force of such a representation ; but he was unsuccess- 
ful (?). By a letter which the Earl of Bedford \^rote to Cecil, from Berwick, on the 9th of 
January, 1567, we learn that the archbishop was not allowed to proceed to the hearing 
of cases, and tliat, ' because it was found to be contrary to the true religion, and there- 
fore not liked of by the townsmen ; at the suit of my Lord Murray, the Queen was 
pleased to revoke what she had before granted to the said bishop.' Probably the grant 
of jurisdiction was not 'revoked' but only suspended, as Bothwell subsequently 
availed himself of ii, : but even its suspension sufficiently testifies that Mary, at this 
period, listened implicitly (?) neither to one nor the other of her counsellors." fStilj 
Bothwell carried his point and profited by it. Mark that ! J— Henry Glaupord Bell's 
•'Life of Mary. Queen of Scots," I., 22, 23. 



47 

friend of tlie banished Murray, and tlie most unprincipled ex- 
pression of an unprincipled era, together with other Hot- 
spurs, had found means to persuade the weak-minded Darn- 
ley that Rizzio was intimate with the Queen, and without 
proof he believed it, and made himself the tool in a fright- 
ful political murder. The consequences of such a deed must 
have been as inevitable as they were almost — as they proved 
— illimitable, — perceptible two centuries afterward. 

"It almost seems as if there had been a purpose of 
killing the Queen" through terror ; tlie table fell upon her ; 
"but Ruthven, with his complices cast down our table 
upon ourself " Rizzio was stabbed over the Queen's shoul- 
der; [they] "struck him over our shoulder with whinyards;" 
[he was] "killed upon the threshold of the chamber," "at 
the entry of the cabinet" [they] "gave him 56 (!) strokes 
with whinyards and swords, one part standing before our 
face, wnth bended [aimed] daggs" [pistols], (Mary, to the 
Archbishop of Glasgow. Labanoff I., 345). "The King 
(Darnley) held her ; the King constrained and embraced 
her, holding her in such a way that she could not move." 
(Despatch to Cosmo de Medici, 8th October, 1566. La- 
banoff, YIL, 93.) 

Bothwell was taken unawares by this occurrence. 
Doubtless the attempt was also aimed at him. He and 
Huntley saved themselves with difficulty through a window. 
They hurriedly, amid the contusion and darkness of the 
bloody night, collected together a few troops for the defence 



48 

of the Queen ; but, auticipated by Morton, who was all pre- 
pared, they were forced to retire. It was not simply the 
killing of a favorite. Certainly some had designs on the 
life of the Queen. In any case, she was to he held as a 
prisoner. Let those bear tliis in mind who see in the occur- 
rences of the following year only the consequences of her 
guilt in consenting to the murder of Daridey and espousal 
of Both well. The Murray party (the "Lords of the Con- 
gregation") were with tbe pliable Darnley to take the rud- 
der of government. It was again Bothwell who, at this 
juncture brought help. The whole following plan seems to 
have come from his head. Darnley — who here played a 
fool's role, which made him utterly contemptible — was 
persuaded by the Queen to escape witli lie.r from his 
friends^ and yet worse from his accomplices. Huntley 
and Bothwell guided the flight and br(jught them to Dun- 
l)ar Castle. There Bothwell quickly assembled such a 
large army that the Queen, within nine days, as early as 
the 18tli March, was able to march in triumph against 
Edinburgh. The conspii-ators fled ; the mostly guilty even 
to Elizabeth, who protected them. A few blovvS sufliced 
to settle everything. Bothwell was installed in place of 
the Provost of Edinburgh Castle, and as Castellan of Dun- 
bar Castle, since the previous commander of the latter 
had been an accessory to the Rizzio crime. This was the 
only revKiTd Bothwell as yet had received from Mary 
for his Invahiahle services. No man in Scotland could 



49 

win a v^ictory so rapidly as Botliwell, for the one side, or, 
for the other side, as Murray. His native capacities for 
command, not without harshness, appear here in the riglit 
light. Mary v:as, politically speaking, thrust more and 
more into his arms. This must have made him yet more 
hated by those who had the habit of looking on legal 
order in the light of a fetter. It is, however, the essen- 
tial cause of his increasing and finally all-powerful influence. 
IS'o other man gave peace to the state, although it was 
with a severe and heavy hand. Was Mary Stuart in love 
with him ? It is very probable that among so many un- 
faithful or weak specimens about her, this " keal man," her 
only help, may have appeared very deserving of respect. 
Yes, she must, at least, have given esteem and trust to this 
pithy, strongly-marked character. That the impulse of the 
heart joined is not less demonstrable. It may not appear, 
clearly, that this swelled up into a sweeping all-forget- 
ting passion. But it did. It Is true, it might not follow that 
the heart should inevitably chime in where the urgencies 
of the state imperiously forced her into the arms of the 
Earl ! In this case, her passions did so. Botliwell, the 
only representative of modern political ideas of order 
and dnty, was at the same time the sole man who pos- 
sessed the power of curbing the recalcitrants. This quality, 
however, least of all contented the Scottish nobility ; and, 
in proportion as his power grew, silently, but the more dan- 
gerously for that reason, the general hatred of the nobility 



50 

augmented toward him. Simultaneouslj, in him, qualities 
acquired additioiuil force which were even more pregnant 
with fate to himself Tliese were his self-reliance and su- 
perlative confidence in himself It was indeed exactly these, 
his inborn qualities as a rider, which, as they multiplied 
enemies for him, ripened in him, as in Macbeth, what 
Dargaud styles the "Hell-born" qualities — ambition to 
make hiuiself the head-ruler and grasp the helm of the 
state, even if to do so it was necessary to commit a crime. 

Meantime arrangements were to be made for the safe 
lying-in of the Queen, whose death would have been 
accej^table to many. Edinburgh Castle was determined 
on as the safest place for this occurrence, and, moreover, 
she desired to enjoy a little tranquillity. It does great 
honor to the Queen's heart that she pardoned Darnley, 
was herself reconciled with her brother Murray, and his 
brother-in-law Argyle, and also persuaded Huntley and 
Both well to a like course. Bothwell's acquiescence is the 
best and most honorable testimony to his readiness to 
restore concord. Murray and Argyle lived in the castle ; 
Huntley and Bothwell did not. The latter, soon after, 
set oft' for the Borders for the purpose of watching the 
movements of Morton, who, without hindrance from any 
one, was threatening them from England. Aftairs of 
state were principally in the hands of the Bishop of Ross. 

The difiicult period of Mary's lying-in passed away 
happily. James YI. was born on the 19th June, 1566. 



51 

Four weeks later the Queen's excursion took place. This 
was by water over the Forth to Alloa House, under the 
escort of Murray, of Mar, and, as was natm^al, of the Lord 
High Admiral of Scotland, Bothwell. What, however, do 
the calumniators of Mary Stuart make out of this trip. Lis- 
ten to the Journal of Murray. On the 20th July ( " or there- 
by "), "she fled the company of the King (?) and past with 
boythis (vessels) to Alloa house with the pyrattes ; and 
the King came also and was repulsed." "With the 
pyrattes!" as if Bothwell and his companions were sea- 
robbers, and as if the Queen could know that these four 
would be concerned in the murder of Daruley. How ? 
Were Murray and Mar lik-ewise sea-robbers? "And the 
King was repulsed." Darnley, on the contrary, landed, ' 
and was reconciled with the Queen, as the French Ambas- 
sador, Castelnau affirms. Lethington, the Secretary of 
State, then and there received pardon. Of Bothwell, how- 
ever, Bedford informs us, August 2d, to Cecil, "he is 
generally hated, and is more insolent than even Kizzio 
was," that is to say, he kept every one in chech, and main- 
tained peace and order in the country. Only on the 
Borders things were yet in a disquieted condition, and 
this was due to the underhand intrigues of England. 

On this account it was determined by the ' ' pirates ' ' 
in Alloa to hold solemn Courts of Justice {Justiclairs I) at 
Jedburgh, on the English Border, for the restoration of 
the peace and order. So many things, however, inter- 



52 

vened, that they were put off until October. On the 7th 
September, Bothwell was in tlie Secret CounciL Here 
the first combination of Botliwell and Murray against 
Darnley seems to have occm-red. What followed is made 
better known, and will be descril)ed in as short a space as 
possible, so as not to exceed the limits assigned to the dis- 
cussion. It cannot, however, be omitted, for then a gap 
would appear in the general exposition. The points on 
which the views of the case herein presented are based 
on the most substantial grounds. Wherein they differ from 
others can only be indicated and summarily established. 

Peace at this time, as has been stated, had been 
established and was temporarily maintained. A few such 
years of tranquillity under the government of Bothwell, 
now that he was reconciled with Murray, and perfect order 
might have been permanently assured to Scotland. The 
folly, tlie unsteady character of Darnley, liowever, did not 
allow of the long continuance of quiet. His haughtiness 
without strength, his disposition, vaccillating without ami- 
ability, made him hateful to all, and finally so to himself 
Serious differences between Darnley and Mary could not 
fail to arise. Still, to find matter of reproach against 
Mary on this account can only be attributable to ill will, 
or spring from a want of acquaintance with the circum- 
stances. Darnley wanted to obtain the crown-matri- 
monial of Scotland. For Mary to concede it to him was 
to put folly on the throne, to make all i3arties her enemies. 



53 

and to deliver over the state to insurrection. Mary was 
obliged to refuse the crown-matrimonial to him. The 
refusal called forth such a childish display of petulance that 
he became despicable to all, and when, entirely without 
reason, he wished to flee to France (as he informed the 
French Ambassador du Croc, on the 25th September, and 
on the 29th September), his father wrote to the Queen, 
that his son had inflicted upon himself the most damaging 
blow possible. The Members of the Council of September 
29th, 1566, were unanimous in a decision adverse to him, 
and he was obliged to confess he had no good reason 
whatever for his conduct. 

Doubtless Murray's idea of getting rid of Daridey now 
took more solid form ; only how to do so was undecided. 
Here it should be j^articularly noticed that the whole 
Council of the Sth of October, formally declared that, 
' ' so far as facts had come to their knowledge, Darnley 
had no ground of complaint." 

Bothwell was not present at this "sitting," but only 
at those of the 3d and 6th October, which were held to 
discuss the same subject. * - * ""'^ 

On the 17th December, 1566, the baptism of the infant 
prince, James YL, took place. If we choose to believe 
Buchanan and Murray's Dairy, the attention of the Queen 
was especially taken up in having Bothwell' s dress particu- 
larly handsome and even in supplying him with money. 
It is of greater consequence to know that, although it was 



54 

a Roman Catholic baptism, he himself a Protestant, con- 
dnctecl it — was complete Master of the Ceremonies. The 
other Protestant Lords were so intolerant that they would 
not even enter the chnrch. As their action in the 'Na- 
tional Council — wherein, at that time, there was no Koman 
Catholic — was essential, it is highly to the credit of Both- 
well that he alone, as ever, was nnprejndiced enough to 
afford his hearty co-operation to the Queen. His in- 
flnence had already reached its full height, and certainly 
rightly so. Even his old enemies coveted his favor and he 
put faith in them. This was assuredly a Sign of his open- 
heartedness and nobility of character. He was all-power- 
ful and surrounded the Queen with his creatures. Thns he 
was entirely master of tlie situation. This, and the con- 
sciousness of inborn power to rule, unfortunately made him 
too sure of enduring triumph, and carried him — a noble- 
man who^ as it can he proved^ had liitherto been giiilty 
of nothing dishonorable — beyond the restraints of virtue 
and determined him to set about compassing the death of 
the King, Darnley, despised on all sides — a result which 
everybody desired, but from the execution of which all, 
except Bothwell, shrunk back from fear. Their (not his) 
hesitation was based neither upon pity nor virtue, but 
simply u]3on interested personal or political motives. 

Let it here be distinctly noticed that, despite the gene- 
ral assumption, BothwelVs pa/rticijpation in the murder 
of Darnley has not been strictly proved — that is undeniably 



55 

and completely beyond the power of reasonable denial. 
In opposition to tlie allegations of his enemies, stands his 
being pronounced not gnilty by tliem / the nnscrupulous 
acquittal of himself and condemnations of others by the 
Parliament; his own denial; and the subsequent probable 
falsifications of the testimony and of the dying declarations 
of witnesses. It would not be impossible, that some, at 
least, formally sought to pronounce him fully exonerated. 
Petrick, however, follows the general opinion ; firstly, 
because he shared it ; secondly, because, according to the 
morals of the times when it occurred, it is certainly not 
dishonoring for Botlnoell. Petrick concludes by observing 
he does not acquit him, but in all things he desires if he 
is compelled to condemn Bothwell, if, and when, it must be 
done, he seeks to do so justly, not otherwise. 

Darnley was always in discredit with Murray's party; 
he had lost the favor of the Queen, on account of his per- 
sonal conduct and his participation in the murder of Rizzio 
and his denial of his falsehood and treacherous acts. 
To Morton and the other conspirators he had become con- 
temptible from his credulity and hateful for his treachery 
to their cause. Foreign powers did not recognize him as 
king ; nevertheless, he who could not rule himself de- 
manded the Crown Matrimonial with childish vehemence. 
"A young fool and 'crank'" (Martyre de Marie, Jebb 
II., 211), he threatened with death, every instant, one or 
another of the magnates. Still Mary openly seemed 



56 

unwilling— or played her part so — to be separated from 
liini. On these accounts, the state was in danger of being 
precipitated from one crisis iiito another. What wonder 
is there that people thought of some method of getting 
him out of the way, and that Bothwell, the boldest and 
most powerful, undertook it. Thus the subsequent fatal 
deed is not excused — it is explained. 

One fact should be clearly brought to the light. All 
parties supported Bothwell in his action ; all desired the 
result, but each shunned the deed — especially Murray, who 
has steadfastly denied it, and Morton, upon whom, dur- 
ing his trial, it was proved. Both were in the plot. In 
the preparation, the following coincidences can be dis- 
tinctly noted : at Edinburgh, 29th Septemljer ; at Craigmil- 
lar, 5th December, and at Whittingham, 20th January. 

When Darnley, on the 29th of September, played that 
deplorable role at Craigmillar, all came to the conclusion 
that he Avas impracticable. How far the consultation 
went, cannot be exactly determined. To a certainty, the 
idea first of making way wdth him originated with the 
Secretary Maitland (Lethington), who at once won over 
his friend Murray to it, and, on the 30th September and 
3d of October, they had two interviews with Bothw^ell on 
the subject. The latter did not require much persuasion. 

The mutual good understanding which appears be- 
tween the two ancient enemies, Murray and Bothwell, 
until after the murder, is the best token of this. The plot 



57 

advanced to a new stage wlien all came to Craigmillar 
Castle on the 23d November, where they remained until the 
5th December, On the 3d December they presented 
themselves, together, before the Queen — Murray, Both- 
well, Argyle, Huntley and Lethington. The last was 
spokesman, and proposed a matrimonial separation. Mary 
did not agree to this, but wished, herself, to withdraw to 
France and to leave Darnley behind as Regent. This 
at once brought matters to a crisis. Threats against 
Darnley were let fall. JSTevertheless, publicly, loJiatever may 
have heen her jpriva^te vieios and feelings^ the Queen re- 
fused energetically to have anything to do with the affair. 
The peaceful means of adjusting matters was wrecked. 
Doubtless a "Bond" was at once drawn up by Sir James 
Balfour (who at a later date abandoned Bothwell) and 
signed by Bothwell, Huntley, Argyle and Lethington, 
with the final intention of killing Darnley. Murray did 
not sign it ; yet any one must be blind who holds him 
guiltless because he did not actually affix his signature. 
He was astute enough not to compromise himself by his 
handwriting ; but without his knowledge and approval 
what followed could not well have occurred. Lethington 
himself says, " I am assurit he will look through his fin- 
geris thairto^^'' and, in addition, it is proved by the pro- 
test of the Earls of Huntley and Argyle. His friend 
Lethington, his brother-in-law Argyle, were present, and 
the price or consideration of that "Bond " was the recall of 



58 

Morton, Murray's friend, whicli was obtained at the time of 
tlie Baptism, at the request of Bothwell and tlie otliers. The 
j^hxn of Murray was laid in a masterly manner to kill the 
King, to recall his friends, to tlirow the wdiole respon- 
sibility upon Bothwell, and, then, on the overthrow of this 
latter, to come out as the champion of morals. Bothwell 
certainly overlooked, or was blinded to, the fact that he was 
nothing but a tool. lie believed in the honor of the others 
and this trustfulness of his was a co-operating cause of 
his fall. As a usur^jer he failed in not possessing the 
ignoble characteristic of mistrust and a contempt of his 
fellow men, as well as, likewise, the ever intently-listen- 
ing-ear of a bad conscience, which, after some experience 
of treachery, hears in antici]3ation what in coming. He 
'was a 'master in power, hut not in cunnhuj. His unprin- 
cipled, cold blooded, co-conspirators were exactly the 
reverse of this. 

When Mary apparently sought a reconciliation with 
her sick liusbaiid, then the Confederates concluded there 
was no more time to lose and the conspiracy became ripe 
on the 20th January, 1567, at Whittingham, the Castle 
of Murray's brother. Maitland, Morton and Bothwell 
were the three who executed everything. On the follow^- 
ing day, the 21st, Bothwell accompanied tlie Queen on 
her journey to Glasgow, whence she washed to bring away 
her consort as far as Callendar. Then Bothwell turned 
about, so as to arrive in Edinburgh on the 23d of January, 



59 

and on tlie following daj to leave for Tlerniitage in Lid- 
desdale. His intention was no donbt to raise support 
among liis clansmen. 

Mary's ignorance of tlie preparations for the removal 
of lier linsband, Darnley, even if she did love Bothwell, 
cannot be clearly proved, even by her most ardent cham- 
pions and advocates. 

In the night of 9th-10tli Febrnary, the blow was struck. 
About two o'clock, the house in which Darnley resided 
was blown into the air. ^Nevertheless, although this 
much is certain, the mode of his death is still an unsolved 
riddle. The proclamation of the 26th June, 1567, accuses 
Bothwell of having murdered Darnley "with his 'own 
hands," but in flat contradiction to this is the testimony of 
his enemy, Buchalian. "Especially when on the whole 
body nothing apj^eared broken, contused or livid." Con- 
sequently it may be at least doubtful whether or not Both- 
well, in person, was present at the murder. JSTevertheless 
it must not be forgotten that the whole nobility, then and 
at a later period, sympathized with the deed, and that the 
wild ideas of that time and of the Scottish people made 
little account of a murder. Consequently it is inconsistent 
with common sense to believe that the bold Bothwell, any 
more than the hypocrite Murray, rose above his time. If, 
later, Bothwell' s actual accomplices — Morton among them, 
who was subsequently executed for his participation in the 
crime — pretended to avenge the murder of the King — 



60 

whom they never had acknowledged as such, whom they 
]3ersecnted during his lifetime, and Mdiose death they pro- 
cured — and set no bounds to their outraged morality ; 
all this was only the culminating zeal of accomplices who, 
in fevered haste, strove by so doing to clear their own 
skirts, fouled with so many crimes. Immediately after 
the murder they showed no exasperation ; they associated 
intimately with Botliwell, and Murray invited him to his 
house to a formal banquet, perhaps from fear. At the time 
of the nmrder, Murray could have immediately got together 
an army, driven Botliwell away and punished the murder- 
ers, but that was contrary to the Agreement or ' ' Bond ' ' and 
its consummation, at which he had "looked through his 
fingers." 

Murder op Darnley. — "The narrative contained in tlie third 
part of the poem will be found to cori-espond closely with the account 
of the murder given by Bothwell's accomplices, Ormiston, Hay of 
Talla, and Hepburn of Bolton, in their examinations and confessions, 
which are printed at full length in Pitcairn's Criminal Trials. Yet 
over some parts of this frightful tragedy there still hangs a cloud of 
mystery; in particular, it appears impossible to ascertain whether 
Darnley perished by the explosion, or whether he was strangled in 
bed, or in the orchard, when attempting to escape. [By Douglas and his 
Seids, not by, or with, the knowledge of Bothwell or his subordinates. 
What is more, the house had been mined and the mines charged before 
Bothwell's men brought a grain of powder into the building.] There 
is strong evidence to support the latter view. On the following morning 
his body, and that of his servant Taylor, were found lying under a 
tree, in an orchard, about eighty yards from the ruins. There were 
no marks of fire or of actual injury on his person : and what is most 
remarkable, his furred pelisso [ovei'coat] and pantouffles [slippers] 



61 

Were found close by. The bodies of four men, members of Darnley's 
household, were found crushed among the ruins. The only survivor, 
Thomas Nelson, was asleep when the explosion took place. Buchanan 
says that on that night there were three distinct bands of conspirators 
watching the house. Drury, writing not very long after to Cecil, 
makes an averment to the same effect, and specifies Ker of Fawdon- 
side, the ruffian who, at the murder of Riccio, levelled a pistol at the 
Queen, as having been on horseback near the place, to aid in case of 
necessity. Drury further uses these significant words, " the King 
was long of dying, and to his strength made debate for his life." 
Melville says, " it was spoken that the King was taken forth, and 
brought down to a stable, where a napkin was stopped in his mouth 
and he therewith suffocated." Herries' account is different, but very 
circumstantial. He says that Bothwell, after leaving Holyrood, 
" went straight to the Kirk-of -Field, up Robloch's Wind, where he met 
with William Parris and John Hamilton (a servant to the Archbishop 
of St. Andrews), who had stolen the keys of the gates. They entered 
softly the King's chamber, and found him asleep, where they both 
strangled him and his man, William Taylor, that lay by him on a 
pallet bed. [This is utterly im])ossible, Bothwell was far off in an- 
other direction.l Those assassins that are named to be with Bothwell, 
and actors, were those two above named, Parris and Hamilton, John 
Hay of Talla, John Hepburn of Bolton, George Dalgleish, and one 
Powrie, Bothwell's men all ; James Ormiston of that Ilk (called Black 
Ormiston), Hob Ormiston, and Patrick Wilson. After they had 
strangled the King and his man dead, they carried them both out at a 
back gate of the town-wall, which opened at the back of the house, 
and laid them down carelessly, one from another, and then fired some 
barrels of powder which they had put in the room below the King's 
chamber ; which, with a great noise, blew up the house. They imag- 
ined the people would conceive the house to be blown up by accident, 
and the corpse of the King and his man to be blown over the wall by 
the force of the powder. But neither were their shirts singet, nor their 
clothes burned (which were likeways laid by them), nor their skins 
anything touched by fire ; which gave easie satisfaction to all that 
looked upon them." 

^^ My own conviction (W.EdraonstouneAytoun) is that Darnley 



62 

was strangled in the orchard while attemi^tingto escape ; that he had been 
awakened either by tlie sound of the locking of the door, or by the 
smell of the burning fuse, which, Bolton says, was lighted for a quar- 
ter of an hour before the explosion took place ; and that, in his haste, 
he had caught up the garments which were found beside his corpse. 
I do not see how it is possible to account otherwise for the appear- 
ance of the bodies and the scattering of the dress. For let it be sup- 
posed possible that the bodies could be blown through the roof, and 
cast such a distance into the orchard, without presenting any visible 
marks, still no one can believe that loose articles of dress could be 
carried there by the explosion. I think that the real details of the 
murder, from whatsoever source they might have come, were known 
to Drury ; for the accuracy of the information obtained by the agents 
of Elizabeth, with regard to every important event in Scotland, is truly 
wonderful. But if Darnley was murdered in the orchard, and not in 
the house, / must also conclude that other actors, unknown to Bothwell 
and his men, were engaged in the mllianous work. [This is so ; proved.] 
Bolton and Talla, who confessed to having put the powder in the 
house, fired the match, and locked the door behind them, averred, 
both in their depositions when examined and in their confessions 
before execution, that there were but nine of their company, and 
that they neither saw nor knew of any others. The nine were 
Bothwell, two Ormistons, Bolton, Talla, Dalgleish, Wilson, Powrie, 
and French Paris. And the confession of Bolton, corroborated 
by that of Talla, bears, "He knows no others, but that he (Darnley) 
was blown in the air ; for he was handled with no man's hands 
as he saw ; and if he was, it was with others, and not with them." 
They both concur in saying that the two Ormistons went away 
after the powder was put in, the Queen being then in the house 
with Darnley, and that they did not return ; which tallies perfectly 
with the account given by Ormiston in his confession, for he says that 
the clock struck ten as he returned to his lodging, "to avoid suspicion, 
that no man should say I was at the deed-doing ; for I was an hour 
and more in my bed before the blast and crack was." Wilson and 
Powrie were mere servants, who brought the powder, by order of 
Bolton, and, having delivered it, returned to the Abbey, where they 
waited, until summoned by Bothwell to go with him to the Kirk-of- 



63 

Field. They were carrying back the mail and trunk in which the 
powder had been conveyed, when, "as they came np the Black Friar 
Wynd, the Queen's grace was going before them with light torches." 
This marks the time of their departure. Dalgleish, Bothwell's gi'oom 
of the chamber, xvas not at the Kirk-of-Field in the earlier part of the 
night, and only witnessed the catastroplie. Paris went away at the 
same time as Ormiston, but he seems to have come back to witness 
the explosi(m. This man, whose real name was Nicholas Hubert, and 
who had previously been in Bothwell's service, was the party who 
furnished the keys. There is, however, trace of one other person, 
Archibald Betoun, who was Queen's usher, and the proper custodian 
of the room in which the powder Avas placed. Nelson, the sole sur- 
vivor of the explosion, deponed that this Betoun had the keys ; and 
Ormiston, in his confession, says, that "Archie Betoun" was along 
with Paris while they were preparing to lay down the fuse. But, apart 
from this, all the confederates and servants of Bothwell, who were 
executed for their share in the murder, declared that they knew of no 
others present at or concerned in the deed. Neither Ormiston, nor 
Bolton, nor Talla, could have any motive or interest in giving a false 
account ; for they all three admitted that they were principal actors in 
causing the explosion, by which they evidently thought that Daruley 
perished. [He did not — he was strangled by Archibald Douglas] 

Powrie, however, stated in his deposition, that when he and Wil- 
son brought the powder to the gate at the entrance of the Black 
Friars, there were with Bothwell two strangers, " who had cloaks 
about their faces ; " and, upon being re-examined, he said that the Earl 
of Bothwell came to them at the gate, "accompanied with three more, 
who had their cloaks, and 'mules' upon their feet." Mules were large 
slippers, worn to prevent the tread of the feet from being heard. 
From evidence given at a much later trial, it appears extremely pro- 
bable that one of these strangers was Archibald Douglass, Parson of 
Glasgow, a near relative of Morton. But, whoever they were, they 
had departed by ten o'clock ; and both Hepburn of Bolton, and Hay of 
Talla, who were in the house "till after two hours after midnight," 
when the match was lighted, say positively in their deposition that 
they knew of no others concerned, save the nine in their company. 
It is quite possible that their depositions may have been altered to 



(54 

suit the pur2')0ses of Murray and Morton, before whom they were 
emitted ; but there is no evidence to tliat eft'ect, and we must take 
them as they stand. "[Why ? Knowing those two men, should their 
frauds stand without tlie nicest critical investigation '? Far from it."] 
If their depositions are entitled to credence, they establish this much, 
that these two men, as well as Bothwell, believed that Darnley was 
asleep in the house when the explosion took place, and that no other 
company was on the watch. 

But, as Miss Strickland, who has taken great pains in the investi- 
gation of this point, has shown, it appears from depositions recently 
discovered in the General Register House of Edinburgh, that on that 
night two detachments of men, one of eight, and the other of eleven 
(two of whom were in armor), were seen hurrying from the Kirk-of- 
Field, immediately before and after the explosion. There is thus evi- 
dence that another party, besides that of Bothw'ell, was on the watch ; 
and this circumstance strongly corroborates the account of the murder 
which was sent by Drury to Cecil. [See statement of Opitz, 1879, 
pp. 415-16, and of Bekker, 1881, pp. 417-23 (translated from the Ger- 
man), in the United Service, October, 1882]. 

These complications may appear to the casual reader unnatural 
and overstrained ; for at first sight it seems extremely improbable that 
two bodies of conspirators should have been sent on the same errand, 
without the one being cognizant of the presence of the other. But 
then it must be kept in vieio that the main object of the other conspira- 
tors teas to implicate Bothwell, and to avoid anything that might leave a 
trace of their participation in the deed. |^°Murray found it convenient 
to go over to Fife on the morning before the murder, selecting Sunday 
as his travelling day, which assuredly was a great lapse in so rigid a 
professor of Calvinism. ^^^ Morton was at St. Andrews. His kinsman, 
Archibald Douglass, was indeed in tlie plot, as the Earl long afterwards 
confessed on the eve of his execution, and had told him of the purpose ; 
but then, as he said to the inquisitive [Presbyterian] ministers, " Mr. 
Archibald at that time was a depender of the Ear! of Bothwell, making 
court for himself, rather than a depender of mine." In short, the lead- 
ing conspirators were desirous of two things — firstly, that Darnley 
should be effectually disposed of, and, secondly, that the whole blame 



65 

should rest on the shoulders of BotJiwell — and they took their measures 
accordingly. 

It seems very clear that they had not much faith in Bothwell's 
dexterity ; for they made provision, unknown to him, that he should 
not blunder in the execution of his design. From Bolton's deposition 
and. Ormiston's confession, it would appear that, until two days before 
the murder took place, Bothwell understood that Darnley was to be 
disposed of in a diiferent manner— viz., that each conspiring nobleman 
was to send "two servants to the doing thereof, either in the fields or 
otherwise, as he may be apprehended." " But," said Bolton, " within 
two days before the murder, the said Earl changed purpose of the slaying 
of the King in the fields, because then it would be known ; and showed 
to them (Ormiston, Bolton and Talla) what way it might be used 
better by the powder." Noav, as to the quantity of powder used. 
That was contained in a trunk and a mail or portmanteau, and was 
brought by Powrie and Wilson from the Earl's lodging in Holyrood to 
the Black Friar's gate, where it was handed over to Bolton and Talla. 
It was in bags and was i^oured out loose on the floor of the room below 
Darnley's chamber. All this is distinctly proven. Bolton and Talla, 
after lighting the match — a soldier's fuse, " of half a fathom or thereby" — 
locked the door, and joined Bothwell outside ; and so long was it until 
the explosion took place, that Bothwell could hardly be restrained 
from entering the house to ascertain whether the match had not failed. 
When it came, the exiDlosion was awful. Not only the upper part of 
the house, but the whole fabric, from the foundation-stones, was heaved 
into the air. French Paris said, it was like a tempest or a thunder- 
peal, and that for fear thereof he fell to the ground, with every hair on 
his head standing up like awls ! To use the language of the Privy 
Council, the house was "dung into dross." The same phrase is used 
in Mary's letter to Archbishop Betoun (Labanofl:', Vol. II., p. 3). " The 
matter is so horrible and so strange, as we believe the like was never 
heard of in any country. This night past being the 9th February, a 
little after two hours after midnight, the house wherein the King was 
lodged was in an instant blown in the air, he lying sleeping in his bed, 
with such a vehemency, that of the whole lodging, walls and other, 
there is nothing remaining — no, not a stone above another, but all 
other carried far away, or dung in dross to the very ground-stone." 
9 ' 



66 

In the first volume of Chalmers' ''Life of Queen Mary" there is a fac- 
simile of a drawing, taken at the time, of the ruins, which entirely cor- 
roborates the statement that the house was bloAvn uj) from the very 
fouudations. I do not pretend to be a master of the theory of explosive 
forces, but I have asked the opinion of some competent judges, and I 
am assured, that if the fticts above stated, regarding the quantity of 
powder deposited by Bothwell's people, are correct, it is absolutely 
impossible that the house could have been so demolished from the 
foundation. Here, then, is another mystery. Bothwell's only agents 
were the men specially named ; and they did nothing more than bring 
to the Kirk-of-Field, on the night of the murder, a quantity of powder 
quite inadequate to produce the actual result. The house had been 
premously undermined. There was no diflflculty in doing this, for the 
house of Kirk-of-Field belonged to Robert Balfour, brother of Sir 
James Balfour, who drew the original " Band" for the King's death, and 
he was entirely in the hands of [the utterly imprincipled but remark- 
ably astute] Lethington. This is not a mere hypothesis, for the fact 
rests on undeniable evidence, and it is proved that both Sir James Balfour 
and Archibald Douglass sent powder for the purpose. Miss Strickland 
has the great merit of having brought together, in a little compass, all 
the evidence upon that point. That such were the operations of the 
conspirators is also evident from the terms of the indictment raised 
against Morton in 1581, in which it is set forth that he "most vilely, 
unmercifully, and treasonably, slew, and murdered him (Darnley), with 
William Taylor and Andrew MacKaig, his cubiculars (grooms), when 
as they, buried in sleep, were taking the night's rest, burned his hail 
lodging foresaid, and raised the same in the air by force of gunpowder, 
which, a little before was placed, and in put by him and his foresaids 
binder the ground, and angular stands, and witJdntJie vaults, laigh \laig 
(V) cellars, foundation, or lowest parts] and derne [secret] parts and 
places thereof, to that effect." 

These operations, hoioever, seem to Jiave been studiously concealed 
from Bothwell ; nor was the idea of blowing up the house suggested 
to him until two days before the period fixed for the murder. Like 
many other men of action, Bothwell was infirm of purpose, and liable 
to be imposed on, as indeed his whole history shows, and he fell at 
once into the snare. But he never was informed that the house was 



6T 

already undermined — for this reason, that the other conspirators cal- 
culated on his taking such steps as would avert susj)icion from them- 
selves. And so it proved ; for the powder, conveyed to the Kirk-of- 
Field in the trunk and valise, was brought on the Saturday, by Both- 
well's order, from the magazine at Dunbar, of which he was keeper, to 
his apartments in Holyrood — was carried by his own servants, and 
laid down by his own associates— things which could not be done so 
secretly as to defy detection. In consequence, he was looked upon 
as the sole deviser of the murder, which, however, there are strong 
grounds [incontrovertible proofs] for believing was not perpetrated by 
his means." "Botliwell," a Poem, in Six Parts, by W. Edmondstoune 
Aytoun. Boston. 1856. Note (page 220, &c., Appendix) to Part 
III., § xiii. 

"About the middle of January the Queen returned from Stirling 
to Edinburgh, accompanied by the infant prince. The Earl of Morton 
had by this time returned to Scotland ; and, even before he reached his 
own home, Bothwell and Maitland met him, and proposed that he 
should join in the conspiracy for the murder of the King [Darnley]. 
This remarkable interview took place at Whittingham Castle, in East 
Lothian, the residence of a kinsman of Morton's [? Archibald Douglas, 
who was the actual murderer of Darnley] ; and, according to the 
confession of that nobleman, made before his execution, in the year 
1581, he refused to take part in the enterprise unless it was approved 
by the Queen. The conspirators assured him that this was the case ; 
but, as they failed to produce any evidence of her assent, he says that 
he declined to join them. This incident occurred about the 20tli Jan- 
uary, 1567. 

Morton was thus, by his own confession, acquainted with the fact 
of the conspiracy ; and there are strong reasons for believing that, not- 
withstanding his denial, he aided in the prosecution of the plot. Mo- 
tives still more powerful than revenge urged him, as well as the other 
conspirators, to seek Darnley's death. Morton and Maitland, as well 
as Murray, had imposed upon the generous nature of the Queen in the 
disposal of the crown-lands, and they knew that Darnley had expressed 
his disapproval of the improvident bounty of his wife. They knew, 
moreover, that ly the law of Scotland any such grants made without 
the sanction of Parliament might be revoked at any time before the 



68 

queen attained tlie age of twenty-five. The fears of the conspirators 
were not imaginary, for, during the preceding reign, various grants 
which James V. had been induced to make to his nobles during his 
minority were cancelled before he arrived at the full age prescribed by 
law. Mary had now entered her twenty-liftli year, and it was of 
the utmost consequence to the conspirators to obtain a confirmation 
of their titles in the Parliament which was about to meet in the spring. 
If this opportunity were allowed to pass, the Queen might at any time, 
before December, 1567, resume tlie extensive grants of Crown and 
Church lands which she had made to the chief of tlie Protestant nobil- 
ity before her marriage. The conspirators had good reason to fear 
that Darnley would exert all his influence to induce her to take this 
step ; and as his illness might not improbably lead to a reconciliation 
between the royal pair — for they all knew her forgiving temper — the 
danger was obvious and imminent. Although Bothwell had shared 
less [!] in the bounty of the Queen than his associates, we know he had a 
motive no less powerful fo-r seeking the death of Darnley [the hand 
of Mary]. Thus was formed the third plot [Bond] of the Protestant no- 
bility for the destruction of Darnley and the Queen. Two had already 
failed, but the conspirators were at length to reap the fruits of their 
perseverance and audacity. 

If it is asked why Maitland and Morton should have lent them- 
selves to the daring schemes of Bothwell, the answer is i)lain. They 
knew that, if successful, they must prove fatal both to him and to the 
Queen. 1^" Bothwell had long been regarded as an enemy by the faction 
of which Murray was the chief The reconciliation between them was 
recent, and it had never been sincei-e. The murder of Darnley, fol- 
lowed by the marriage of the Queen to BotliAvell, could not fail to 
exasperate the people; and amid the general discontent the Protestant 
chiefs w^ould have an excellent opportunity of carrying out their long 
meditated scheme of seizing on the government.,^1 Robertson seems to 
think it incredible that men should help to elevate a confederate whom 
they hated with a view to his ultimate ruin ; yet we know that the 
same men had played the very same game with Darnley only a few 
months before. They had engaged to obtain for him the crown-matri- 
monial as the price of his adhesion to the conspiracy against Riccio ; 
but who can doubt that, if Darnley had ever acquired that dignity, he 



69 

would have been speedily hurled from it by the men to whom he was in- 
debted for his elevation ? ^^° The plot for the destruction of Darnley 
failed from causes already explained; the plot for the ruin of Bothwell 
was entirely successful:' ^^^ " Mary, Queen of Scots, and Her Accusers." 
By John Hosack. Edinburgh and London. 1870. Vol. I., pp. 178-181. 



Thus far the author, with divergences — expressions 
of his own oj)inions and contrary to those of Dr. Petrick — 
has followed generally the learned German. The rest of 
Petrick' s arguments constitute the basis of the author's 
Second Article on the Earl of Bothwell, in the October 
(1882) number of the ''United jService,'' pp. 423-437, 
— issued together with the First Article in the September 
number — in pamphlet form, and entitled "A Yindication 
of James Hepburn, Fourth Earl of Bothwell, Third Hus- 
band of Mary, Queen of Scots." The balance of this 
present work will be a "Summing up," founded on the 
author's personal examination of over two hundred works 
in English, French and German. The author's Trilogy, 
"Mary, Queen of Scots, a Study," "A Vindication of 
James Hepburn, &c.," and "James Hej)burn, Earl of 
Bothwell," are intended to present the character of a 
"eeal maj^," — traduced through over three centuries — in 
a true light and demonstrate how villainously he has been 
misrepresented, calumniated, and — pardon the expression, 
but it is the only one applicable in this case — consistently 
belied. 




" Through the large, stormy splendors of the night, 
When clouds made war, and spears of moonlight strove 
To penetrate their serried ranks and prove 
That stronger than the darkness was the light. 
Yet failed before the storm-clouds' gathered might, 
/ heard a voice cry: ''Strong indeed is Love, 
But stronger Fate and Death, who hold above 
Their pitiless high court in Love's despite.' " 

Louise Chandler Moulton, in ^^ Lippittcotf s IMagazincl 



But O, that day, when first I rose, a cripple from my lair — 

Threw wide the casement, breathed my fill of fresh and wholesome air — 

Drank in new life, and felt once more the pulse's stirring play — 

O, madly in my heart is writ the record of that day ! 

I thought to hear the gorcock crow, or ouzel whistle shrill, 

When lo ! a gallant company came riding up the hill. 

No banner was displayed on high, no sign of war was seen. 

No armed band, with spear and brand, encompassed Scotland's Q?teeji^ 

She came, on gentle errand bound, — the bounteous and the free — 

She came to cheer her ivounded knighty she came to smile on me. 

She waited not for guard or groom, but passed into the hall ; 

Around her were the four Maries, herself the rose of all. 

I never thought that woman's voice could thrill my being so, 

As when she thanked me for my zeal in accents soft and low. 

I saw the tear within her eye, when, bending down to me. 

She placed her lily hand in mine, and bade me quit my knee. 

' Dear lord,' she said, ' 'tis woman's right to comfort when she may : 

Then chafe not, if we take by storm your Border-keep to-day. 

We come not to invade your hall, or rudely mar your rest : 

Though well I know, at fitter time, I were a welcome guest. 

But could I quit the Border-side without my thanks to him 

Who paid his service far too well, at risk of life and limb ? 

Ah, BoTHWELL I you have bravely done, and all my thanks are poor ; 

Would God thai more ivere bent like you to make my throne secure ! 

True heart ! strong arm ! I cannot place a chaplet on your brow. 

For the old laws of chivalry are dead and vanished now ; 

B7(t, trust fne, never was a Queen more debtor to a peer. 

Than /, brave Earl, am proud to own, before the presence here ! ' " 

Avtoun'.s ^^Bothivell,'^ IL, vii., viii. 

70 




n 

HE story of Maey Stuaet, Daenley, Both- 
well, and the implacable enemy of all 
three, but particularly the last, Mueeay, 
has not as yet been clearly understood or 
its true particulars manifested. To com- 
prehend it, it is necessary to disentangle 
manifold considerations of cause and ef- 
fect. Each of these is entirely independent of the others 
in its, and their, progress of development, and yet so 
strangely are they inter-twisted as to seem at times in- 
separable. In the first place, the head and front of all 
the ofii'ending was the mischief-maker, Mary's bastard 
brother, James Stuart (Murray), who through the backing 
of Knox and the Reformed clergy and nobility hoped in 
some way to overcome the drawback of his illegitimacy 
and become King of Scotland. Still, as Petrick justly 
observes, the turbulent Scottish nobility did not want a 
king, a master, and above all an illegitimate one. They 
were unwilling to accept such a one, and unfit to have a good 
ruler. They were not even loyal to their ' ' Sovereign by 
the grace of God." ^ot one of the Stuarts can be said to 
have died a natural death : two were assassinated, one fell 
in battle, one was killed by the burstiiig of a cannon, and 
two died of broken hearts through the treason of their 
chief and trusted magnates. Besides these crowned ex- 
amples, one crowned prince was starved to death by his 
own uncle aiming at the crown. 



■72 

According to Robert Birrel's Diary, "There lies beine 
in this Kingdonie of Scothxnd one hundereth and fyve 
kings of quhilk ther wes slaine fyftie sex." {^'-Fragments 
of Scottish History^ p. 3.") 

Sudden and violent ends seemed to be the natural 
terminations of the reigns of Scottish monarchs. This 
was proved when Murray did accomplish his purposes 
and became Regent, June 24th, 1567. Like many 
another bad citizen, he was proving himself an able 
ruler, sufRiciently so to win the title of the "Good 
Regent" when he was assassinated, 23d January, 1570. 
He had enjoyed the aim of his career thirty-one months. 
Lenox, another firebrand, next, the Second Regent, was 
shot 4th September, 1571, within twenty months. John 
Erskine, or Areskin as Rapin styles him, the Eai'l of 
Mar, the Third Regent, died with suspicion of j^oison, 
28th October (15tli November ?), 1572, within fourteen 
months, and the hoary-headed villain, Morton, the 
Fourth Regent, after five years of rule, October, 1572 — 
September, 1577, although lie had resigned, nevertheless 
lost his head 1st June, 15S1. All these wretches, as 
regarded Mary and Both well, saw the cu^) of realization 
dashed from their lips as they were drinking. Murray 
and Morton, the first and last, richly deserved their 
dooms, Lenox won it and Mar got it. By this time 
James VI., the legitimate king, was old enough to sit 
u]^on his throne as the complete rei^resentative of roy- 



73 

alty, but his position was very uneasy. His reign was 
anything but peacefuh Conspiracies succeeded each other, 
rather against those who ruled in his name than against 
the ruler. Inheriting the Crown of England, he found 
himself monarch of a difterent race. There was no 
rebellion among his new people during his reign, but 
turbulence did not end in Scotland for over a century 
and a half subsequently. Cromwell was the only one 
who could keep England, Scotland and Ireland, all three 
so diiferent and antagonistic, quiet. He was indeed in 
every sense a Protector. What Cromwell made himself 
in 1653, Murray was already striving after, in hope, a 
century previous. Cromwell died a natiiral death after a 
rule of nearly five years, Murray came to a violent end in 
less than two. 

Mary but fulfilled the destiny of her race. Raumer 
justly styles the history of her dynasty "The Tragedy of 
the Stuarts," and observes, "As there are ill-fated persons, 
there are also ill-fated families. ' ' Mirabeau (French), pursu- 
ing a similar train of thought, endorses this view of the 
German historian and philosopher, "Though I am far from 
adopting the gloomy and irreligious mania of fanaticism, 
yet it is impossible not to believe that there are very estim- 
able beings who, from a concui-rence of disastrous cir- 
cumstances accumulated on their heads, seem to be destined 
to a calamitous existence." Mary exemplified the truth 

of this individually and intensified its general application. 
10 



74 

Every human heing is a product^ neither more nor less — 
the result of mingled material combinations and develop- 
ments. Jonathan Edwards sets forth an analogous theory, 
an idea, if not in the exact words, in doctrine. He says the 
will or desire to do is free, but the will or desire is never- 
theless dej^endent on a long series of antecedent causes, 
of which the origin is so remote as to defy recognition. 
What is this but another word for "inevitable decree," 
which is simply Fate. 

"But vainly doth a man contend with Fate." 

" Sir, and King, thy Fate 
Tliat comes on all men born hath come on thee." 

are the words of Laing in his "Helen of Troy." That 
but expresses the bed-rock belief of antiquity, that even 
the gods were subject to the "inevitable," whose laws were 
as binding on the Olympian immortals as upon the mortals 
who were their dependents and victims. Under different 
names, but endowed with the same irresistible powers, 
"Hathors in Egyjjt," " Mojpai among the Greeks, or 
Fata in the Latin belief, ' ' all gods, men and things were 
subject to their decrees. It is difficult to distinguish 
between the laws of Necessity and those of I^ature. 
"She" [Nature], says Auerbach, "goes her steady ap- 
pointed course, from eternity to eternity." Coleridge 
thought that "Shakespeare wished to show how even 
such a character as Hamlet is at last obliged to be the 
sport of chance," or Fate. His case, 



75 

" Like mortal schemes by fortune cros't.'* 

"Vainly did my magic sleight 
Send the lover [Bothwell] from her [Mary's] sight." 

However forced asunder, they had to come together until 
all was accomplished — "ISTo spot where human hearts are 
beating can escape the cruel entanglements of Fate." 
"The cm-tains of yesterday drop down, the curtains of 
to-morrow roll up ; but yesterday and to-morrow both 
AEE." " To the divine knowledge, the future must be as 
much preseiit as the present itself." Mary simply ful- 
filled in sorrow and suffering her destiny. It was necessary 
to England's future that she should fail and fall. Keform 
in Church and State hinged upon this, and the world to- 
day is reaping the benefits of her misery — the bitter conse- 
quences of her very criminal love for Bothwell — sown in 
folly and crime, and watered with her tears through twenty 
years. 

"No, no, fair heretic [to principle], it needs must be," 

as Sir John Suckling sang truthfully. 

Bothwell was not Iter evil genius, she was his. She was 
not only, as Babington White styles her, "The false and 
frail accomplice of Bothwell," but the cause and negative 
instigator of "the only crime chargeable to him" — "a 
nobleman, who as it can be proved, had hitherto been 
guilty of nothing dishonorable" (p. 54 supra). "INian's 
destiny is woman ; she it is who opens the thread of his 
life — dark or golden" (Hamerling's '•'■Aspasia''''), ::i:^(^ 



Paracelsus, wisest among the observers of nature, declares 
"Woman is under tlie sovereign influence of a single 
organ." (Miclielet, X., 50-1.) Everything connected 
with Mary's career* has been distorted favorably by her 
own champions and advocates or for evil by the oppo- 
sition. Impartiality discovers no truth, even in her portrait- 
ure. She was not the lovely woman she has been repre- 
sented by pencil, brush or pen. Her pictures, generally 
accejDted as correct, are mere ideals. She was fascinating, 
grace itself — a very Circe. Longfellow has some lines in 



* Among the many curious publications on this uever-aging 
subject, there is a Tragedy, " The Island Queens, or The Death of 
Mary, Queen of Scotland.'''' By J. Banl<s, 4to, 1664. Tliis piece was 
prohibited tlie stage ; for wliich reason the author tliought proper to 
publish it, both in defence of himself and it. The story is founded on 
the Scotch and English histories, to which the author has closely and 
impartially adhered, and well preserved that power of aflfecting the 
passions, which runs through all his works and sometimes makes 
ample amends for the want of poetry and language. It Is reprinted 
without date, with the title of "The Albion Queens, or The Death, 
&c. [Bell's British Theatre, Vol. 22?]. To this edition are the names 
added of Wilkes Booth, Olclfield, Porter, &c., in Dramatis Personce, 
from which it should seem that it was afterwards allowed the liberty 
of being performed." 

" These remarks are from The Comparnon to the Play House : or, an 
historical account of all the Dramatic Writers {and their Works) that 
have appeared in Great Britain and Ireland, from the commencement 
of our Theatrical Exhibitions, down to the present year, 1764. Com- 
posed in the form of a dictionary, for the more readily turning to any 
particular author or performance. In two volumes. London : printed 
for T. Becket and P. A. Dehoudt, in the Strand ; C. Henderson, at 
the Royal Exchange : and F. Davies, in Russel Street, Coveut Gar- 
den, 1764." 



"Hyperion'' dejDicting another Mary, which probably 
presents tlie truth of Mary Stuart : 

— " She was not fair, 
Nor beautiful — tliose words express her not ; 
But, 0, Jier looks had something excellent. 
That wants a name : " — 

These lines exactly epitomize the previous conclusions of 
the author in his "Study" on Mary, and " Yindication " 
of Both well. Or, as Lovelace rhymes: 

" The melody 
Of every grace 
And music of lier face." 

Mary embodied the Charms of "^Nature's three daugh- 
ters — Beauty [or wdiat was accepted as such in her, a 
queen]. Love [the passion], and [undoubtedly] Wit." 

Or, again, to borrow the words of an unpublished 
tragedy : 

" Many a village maid, in face and form, 
The child of Nature, 's far more beautiful 
Than Mary, Queen, so peerless in men's eyes ; — 
But she's a queen, therefore a deity, 
And, to defects, all blinded by her rank, 
See in her face the sea-born Aphrodite. 
She's not so lovelj' as report avers — 
Although most lovable as all admit — 
She is too tall, too vig'rous in her port ; 
A full man's heart is beating in her bosom ; 
And more than once she's pray'd to be a man 
With helm on head and girt with sword and dagg. 
Astride a gallant steed like Border-Chief: 
Yet in her eve there 's such demoniac light 



78 

Can kindle passion in a breast of ice, 

And lure, as serpent fascinates a bird : 

We've seen her do it. Blazing into flame 

Her heat could melt a mass of iron ore : 

'Tis not her beauty won her Hepburn's love, 

But something kin to tropic heat at pole. 

Magnificently clad, her lusty form 

Captures the men as springtime 'livens flies : 

And though she plays, as cat plays with a mouse, 

With lovers bowing 'fore her sov'reign grace, 

By never yielding has Earl Both well won : 

As spell more potent overcomes the less ; 

And binds the weaker with more potent sway : 

His magic's been an over-mast'ring will. 

Her mother's grandeur and her sire's finesse 

Make her omnipotent in swaying men : 

When young she rul'd them with her gentle lures : 

A full grown woman with her subtle wiles ; 

And thus, pre-eminent in female guile. 

She leads the wolves as Orpheus moved the trees : 

Carried away by Darnley's courtly airs, 

She soon discerned the caitiflf 'neath the style. 

And then returning to her stifled love, 

She found herself compell'd, as 't were by Fate, 

Into embrace of stalwart Bothwell's arms. 

As hunted deer rush wildly in the net." 

Partisans, of her creed, exhibit her as a victim and a 
martyr. "Nothing in [her] life became [her] like the 
leaving it." She has foimd knight-errants, even among 
those who do not believe as she did, if she believed — in 
the real sense of belief — anything ; bewitched by her own 
sorceries, and magnetized by her sad story. Is her story true 
as it has usually been told by them ? No ! A thousand times, 



79 

No ! Bothwell was the victim of her Circean lures, as she 
became the \actim of his desires. Bothwell was a "real 
man," a man ahead of his time. "Men who dare to be 
the first in great movements are ever self-immolated vic- 
tims." He belonged to no party ; he swore by no other's 
formula or oath ; he planned, strove, fought — yes, even loved 
for the good of Scotland. He was more upright and mag- 
nanimous than Murray, more virtuous than Morton and 
the whole of that "healthy crowd," who betraj^ed him 
and their country, and more honest and chivalric than 
Xircaldy, the tool and spy of the Elizabethan cabinet, but 
he was less astute than "The Chameleon" Lethington, 
and less brutal than Ruthven or Lindsay, who were 
nothing more than aristocratic rufiians and murderers. 

"A noticeable man, with large grey eyes," he justified 
ChurchhilPs principle, that "The vices of a generous man 
are better than those of a cold-blooded hypocrite, ingrate 
and traitor, ' ' like Murray, cum suis — or even Knox ! 

The diabolical subtlety of the Scottish nobility was 
shown in nothing more clearly than in their refusal to allow 
their monarchs to enjoy the protection of a regular body- 
guard. The conspiracies at the same era against the mon- 
archs of France M^ere not more dangerous and embittered 
than those against Mary ; but in the former case there were 
numerous and highly discij^lined organizations which af- 
forded trustworthy protection to the royal person and 
ministry. The rebellious Scottish nobility were well 



80 

aware, that if Mary could organize a guard solely depen- 
dent on herself, even of a few hundred men, she would be 
at once beyond the immediate reacliof their machinations. 
Had Mary and Bothwell been able to array five hundred 
regulars, in addition to the few hundred faithful Borderers 
who adhered with constancy and courage to Bothwell, with 
two such corps, suppoi-ted l)y what artillery might be car- 
ried into the field, tlie royal pair would have bid defiance 
to all that the rebels could have brouglit together for a 
single decisive collision. This is all that was necessary, 
for it is well known that the last revolt could not have 
maintained itself for a week. Carberry Hill, 1567, was 
fatal to Bothwell, because the Confederate Lords could 
marshal a greater number of trustworthy troops, and 
Laugside, 1568, to Mary, for the reason that Murray 
was able to array discipline against indiscipline, however 
devoted and reckless. 

Bothwell stood alone, as inaccessible to English bribes ; 
and, had he succeeded and shared a stable throne with 
Mary, the union of Scotland and England, under Mary's 
pedantic, "slobbering" son, "the wisest fool in Christen- 
dom," would have been an impossibility. The time, how- 
ever, had arrived that the British islands should become 
united under one crown. Destiny works with strange, un- 
couth and often ci-uel instruments, and by tortuous ways, 
and its motives and motors and movements are inscrut- 



81 

able and almost invariably misrepresented and misunder- 
stood. 

All accepted history is in less or greater degree a fearful 
lie, "a splendid fiction," founded remotely in ignorance, 
unsusceptible of enlightenment at the time, and on wilful 
falsehood, which has worn a rut so deep that succeeding 
historians can hardly extricate themselves from it. 

" And oft repeating [the panegyrics of Mary and malisons on 
Botbwell], they [historians] believe them true." 

It is only within this generation that the story of the 
Maelstrom has been shown to be without foundation, and 
only within a year or two that the "Upas Tree" and its 
"Death Yalley " has been proved to be an utter falsehood. 
" I am gradually coming to disbelieve everything that has 
been asserted," was the despairing utterance of William 
Smith.* Undoubtedly "Religious history is partial in its 
verdicts." What is more and most to the point, '-'-The 
story of James I. hcming had tlie Castle Fotheringay 
razed^ as the scene of his mother'' s deaths is pretty^ hut 
falsey "The site of Fotheringay now [1882] belongs to 
the most moneyed man in England — Lord Overstone, son 
of a London and Lancashire banker, who has a great estate 
there. The castle began to be dismantled in 1625. [This 
date proves James had nothing to do with its demolition. 



* See " Milledulcia," 1857, "The impossibilities of History, Cran- 
mer," 43-44, "The Fallacy of Traditions," 209-'10. 
11 



82 

because he died 27th March of that year.] Sir Robert 
Colton bought the hall iii which the Queen was executed, 
and removed it to Covington, now Mr. Heathcote's, in 
Huntingdonshire ; some of the stone went to build a 
chapel at Finshade, not far distant ; and the remainder of 
the material was used in works to render the Nene, 
which ilows by it, navigable." 

A sensational writer, like a ghoul, disinterred the re- 
mains of England's second greatest poet, to prey upon them, 
and to fill the world with the story of a foulness originating 
in a bitterness of which none but a jealous wife, who con- 
siders herself deeply aggrieved, is capable. "A further 
examination [of a recently discovered correspondence of 
Byron] confirms the opinion we expressed — (is the language 
of a sterling British periodical) — would be to prove the 
groundlessness of the liorrible suggestions made public in 
1869. * * ^' There is nothing in 

the documents [now ready for publication] that does not 
redound to the credit of Lord Byron or his sister." Just 
so the more that is revealed in regard to Both well places 
that cruelly maligned patriot in a better light ; and so it 
will ever be if the investigation is conducted on honorable 
principles by parties who can divest themselves of bigotry, 
partiality, prejudice and wilful blindness. 

"Though from our birth the faculty divine 
Is chain'd and tortured — cabin'd, crib'd, confined, 
And bred in darkness, lest tlie truth should shine 



83 

Too brightly on the unprepared mind, 

The beampours in, for Time and Skill will couch the Blind." 

The writer simply pities those wlio cannot see, and he 
will not indulge in the disgust their wilful stupidity that 
justice and intelligence might justly arouse. "Ephraim 
is a cake not turned," i. <5., only "one-half baked." 
"Ephraim is joined unto idols, let him alone." Mary 
Stuart is an idol to the partisan and bigot. "Ephraim is a 
silly dove," "a wild ass alone by himself: Ephraim hath 
hired lovers." It is perfectly ridiculous to attempt to 
judge the XVI. century by the present era. 

Strange to say, it seems impossible in writing of Mary, 
Queen of Scots, not to make a psychological study ot 
her, and absolutely feeling and taking as much interest in it 
as a doctor does in a dissection. Doubtless there have been 
worse women ; but, as far as her impulses were concerned, 
she was about "as bad as they make them." Her 
powersof fascination were boundless, and she used them to 
their fullest extent wherever her interests seemed to in- 
dicate they might be of service to herself or conducive to 
her purposes. She was habituated to look upon murder 
with complacency, and immorality as not only pardonable, 
but commendable. Her passions, when aroused, appear to 
have been uncontrolled ; and her love to have been sim- 
ply material — for what was there in the hobble-de-hoy 
carpet-knight Darnley, or, to say the worst of him, in the 
border-chieftain, the indomitable moss-trooper, Bothwell, 



84 

to arouse Tier instincts, except the lusty vigor of the one 
or the absolute manhood of the other. Bothwell has 
always hitherto been maligned. He must have been a 
"real man," but perhaps an extremely rough-hew n one, 
full of that, however, which pleases the majority of women, 
chief of all virtues, courage. 

Renan, amid all his half-truths — neutrals — because a 
Frenchman as well as an Orientalist, seemed to be afraid 
to utter more than half-truths ; to throw the gauntlet fair 
and square in the teeth of Roman Catholicism, inasmuch 
as that was the recognized religion of France — did and 
does, nevertheless, utter once in a while grand, indepen- 
dent, pregnant sentences. In his Anti-Christ (Chapter 
XX., 543-4) he observed, "in spite of the many violent 
shocks given to Truth, such fearless firebrands, as Bar 
Gioras and John of Gischala, will never become great 
citizens ; but they will play their parts, and the future 
will discover, perha2:)s, that they, better than men of 
sense, saw farther into the secret designs of Destiny." 

That observation applies forcibly to Mary, Queen of 
Scots. She was to the Union of England and of Scotland 
very much what Bar Gioras and John of Gischala vx^ere 
to the catastrophe at Jerusalem, agents for the dissolution 
of existences, which, dissolving like the seed in the ground, 
still bore within themselves the germ that, nourished by 
their own putrescence, produced plants to grow, to flower 
and to fruit in grander new developments. "The ruin of 



85 

Jerusalem and of the temple, ' ' continues Renan, ' ' was for 
Christianity a fortune without limits. If the reasoning as- 
signed by Tacitus to Titus is correctly re23orted, the victor- 
ious general believed that the destruction of the Temple 
would be the ruin of Christianity as well as of Judaism. 
ISTever did any human being deceive himself so completely." 

Mary, Queen of Scots, was undeniably the rightful 
heir to the Crown of Scotland, and she was posessed, at the 
same time, of strong hereditary claims to that of England 
also ; but she was a bigoted Papist. Her ultraism in belief 
and morality — or rather the want of the latter — smoothed 
the ascent for the march of the Reformation in Scotland 
to a plane elevated even with that in England. 

Her execution made the throne of Elizabeth perfectly 
secure. Had Mary been otherwise than heartless while 
passionate, she would not have been driven from her an- 
cestral realm and deprived of her royal rights. The axe 
that cut oif her head severed at the same time every legal 
claim, which, in her, endangered the crown and existence 
of Elizabeth. The latter, dying without an heir, transmit- 
ted at once her own rights, to her godson, by selection, 
James, as well as those established by the death of his 
mother, Mary, and those which he inherited through 
his sonship. These brought about the union of two king- 
doms, so long arrayed in hostility — and with conquered 
Ireland — completed the Empire of Great Britain. 



86 



"HANDWRITING ON THE WALL OF ENGLAND." 



1066 A.D. 



First Great Act of 
English History. 



Protestantism, or 
the Woman's 
Church. 



Second Great Act. 
Hand .... 



1534 



-First 



1603 



Third Great Act. — Second i 
Hand 



Fourth Great Act. 
Hand .... 



1702 
1714 



-Third 




1837 

Dawn of the Fifth Act. 
This being an act of 
mercy, does not neces- 
sarily involve the re- 
moval of the Queen. 
Perhaps the contrary. 
But I do not pretend to 
prophesy, only to reason 
from analogy. 



Fourth Finger 
Thumb . . . 



First Finger . 
Second Finger 
Third Finger . 

Fourth Finger 
Thumb . . . 



William the Conqueror. 



First Great Act, Popery 
or Egyptian Bondage. 



HenkyVHI. Protestant 
Reformation. 

EDVfARD VI. 

Lady Jane Grey. Sac- 
rifice. 

Mary [Roman] Catholic 

Elizabeth. Founder of 
the [Anglican] Church 

Mary Queen of Scots. 
[1587] Female Curtain 

James I. 

Charles I. Prisoner, 
1646. [Executed 1649.] 

Interregnum. Charles 
II. Sacrifice of King 
and People. 

jAMEsII.[Rom.]Catholic 

William. Founder of 
Protestant Constitu- 
tion. 

Anne. Female Curtain. 

George I. 

George II. 

Geokge III. Sacrifice of 
blood and money. 

George IV. 

William. Parliament- 
ary Reform. 



Victoria. 
tain. 



Female Cur- 



87 

" From this [' Handwriting on the Wall of England'] it is 
evident that the history of England is arranged dramatically by 
the all-wise and all-powerful Manager of the universal theatre, 
and that we are on the eve [1873] of commencing the fifth or last 
act. The history of the world from the beginning is arranged 
in the same order, and it all displays throughout, in a variety of 
modes, the same legitimate arrangement, for it is all written by 
the hand of the only Great Dramatist who can be imagined to 
live from eternity to eternity. The unities of time and place 
are strictly attended to, with the exception perhaps of a few 
perturbations like those exhibited in the planetary movements, 
wliich perturbations are merely the infinitesimal representa- 
tives of human liberty, which is only as a drop in the ocean com- 
pared to the Divine Necessity, by which all things that take 
place are in wisdom and irresistible power ordained. 

"You will observe that in the Middle Finger there is always 
a sacrifice, for it represents the Mountain of Sacrifice when ar- 
ranged in the order of time. The second great act is the Exo- 
dus of the Protestant Church — its coming out of Egyjjt, and 
fighting for an independent existence. It accomplishes its end in 
the fifth little or subordinate act, under Queen Elizabeth, but 
not without blood. Jane Grey, who was a half-crowned, or 
proclaimed queen, was in this di^amatic five [the second grand 
act] the victim. She was the royal female martyr of the Protest- 
ant Church, which is represented by a woman. Mary, her sac- 
rificer, was Catholic ; and thus the fourth act represents, as it 
uniformly does, apostacy or rebellion, or departure from the 
principle which characterizes the era. After the fourth, the 
thumb appears in Elizabeth, and the Church is established, its 
Articles agreed upon in 1562, and confirmed in 1571 by Act of 
Parliament. Thus the Exodus closes. A woman, however, of 
another family was heir to the throne, namely, Mary, Queen of 



Scots, and she was sacrificed. Her curtain, therefore, is black 
[in the tabuhited exposition], as the succession passed through 
her dead body. Her death was inevitable upon the principles of 
dramatic propriety. * * * jm^e Qrey 

had already died for the Protestant Church. Mary must die for 
the [Roman] Catholic Church — for the Protestant Church is 
both Protestant and Catholic — and she is brought from Scotland 
on pu]-pose, because Scotland,being a spiritual Church with Christ 
as its supreme head, represents the principle of spiritual Catho- 
licity in Great Britain. England having a lay, or civil, head of 
the Church, its Catholicity is formal. 

" The three great acts begin with the United Kingdoms of 
England and Scotland, each having contributed its royal, female 
victim. James I. distinguished his reign with a new translation 
of the Bible. And regarding himself and all crowned heads as 
God's vicegerents on earth, he inculcated the doctrine of the 
Divine right of Kings, and the passive obedience of subjects, 
both in Church and State. This reveals the character of the 
third great act. It is a fight for a Constitution as well as a 
Church, some intelligible principle upon Vvdiich the rights of king 
and people may be reconciled with religious principle. The 
fight, of course, begins with the second act, although it is an- 
nounced in the first. Charles I., therefore, in pure dramatic or- 
der, contends with the People, and as the stars in their courses 
are leading towards universal in opposition to particular inter- 
est, the people gain the victory; he is made prisoner in 1646. 
Then the Slonarchy ceased, and Presbytery is established, and 
the Scotch Cliurch reigns triumphant, and draws up the West- 
minster Confession of Faith in company with English divines. 
The Sacrificial ern, which is the third, then begins. The King is 
sacrificed as the reiDresentative of Royalty — the State and the 
People sacrifice one another in the civil wars. When the sacrifice 



• 89 

ceases, the Restoration takes place in Charles II., who is the 
third crowned head of the era, or act. After tliat, of course, a 
departure from principles takes place in the fouith act. King 
James II. becomes traitor to the ruling principle, attempts to 
restore [Roman] Catholicism, and is obliged to flee the kingdom. 
Then the thumb appears in William III., who settles the Protestant 
constitution upon Low Dutch principles — the material power 
taking the precedence, and the multitudinous Parliament gain- 
ing a legitimate and recognized ascendancy. Thus closes the 
great Levitical era of English history. The great era of sacri- 
fice are the cloven mount of republicanism and monarchy. 

" Then the female curtain drops again ; for woman repre- 
sents the negative principle in law, and she thus with strict pro- 
priety divides the eras. Here the Parliaments of Scotland and 
England are united. When the curtain of Queen Anne rises, a 
new act commences. It is the High Dutch era of the Bruns- 
wick family. It is tlie spirit of Germany in England. Germany 
represents the Univei'sal Man. Its ideas are therefore large ; 
but as the first is always material, and the forerunner type, or 
representative of a successor, the universalism of the Brunswick 
era is purely material. Therefore the Church is overboi-ne at 
its commencement. The Convocation is entirely suppressed, 
and the nation devotes itself with unprecedented zeal and as- 
siduity to the pursuit of its commercial or material interests. 
This being the fourth, is the great Numerical era of the history 
of England. Materialism is in the ascendant. It flourishes 
amongst the people, the clergy, and the nobility ; and science 
and philosophy almost silence the voice of the Cliurch in the 
private walks of society. The sacrifice of this era therefore is 
pecuniary, and it takes place as usual in the third act — the reign 
of George III., on the cloven mountain of the king and the re- 
gent. Here the severity is mitigated in respect to the king, and 
12 



90 

his mind only is uffeeted — liis ])ersoii is siived; because the 
Numerical era requires the sacrifice of money chiefly, as repre- 
senting material interests — blood-money. And blood-money it 
has had. The national debt is this blood-money, the great sac- 
rifice of the numerical era. This being also a universal era — an 
Alleman or German era — the externjd empire is greatly en- 
larged 'in India, and the wars are Continental, conducted upon a 
great scale. George IV. constituting the fourth act of the 
drama, an apostacy of course is demanded in his reign by the 
law of the drama, and apostacy is mildly and delicately pei-- 
tbrmed, for we are approaching mild and delicate times, in tlie 
repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and in the Act of Catho- 
lic Emancipation — Catholicity once more in tlie fourth act — 
apostacy from rigid Protestant principle. George means ' hus- 
bandman, or man of the earth ' — admirably representing the 
materiality of the period. Tlie first George was a rude, unpol- 
ished man ; the last was a finished gentleman, but Avholly 
material and sensual. William, the 'man of the sea,' closed 
the drama in the fifth act, by means of a new constitution — 
Parliamentary Reform. The sea is a Catholic representatiA^e. 
The four great rivers run into the sea from the eartli. The 
Georges, or earthmen, terminate their reign in a sea-man. This 
is a still nearer approach to universalism, and as the sea repre- 
sents purity, purifying the corruptible rivers that flow into it, 
so Parliamentary Reform attempts to cure corruption. But 
being only a type, and not the substance, it does not accomplish 
its end. The end is accomplished in the fifth great act, not in 
the minor fifth. 

"The female curtain drops once more, and the name of Vic- 
toria is painted upon it. Her name is propitious ; and as we 
are approaching a mild and gentle government of the Avorld by 
the Great Dramatist, the Queen lias no reason to fear for hei-- 



91 

self. But remarkable changes are on the eve of taking place ; 
and her relationship with Cliurch and State must submit to the 
law of Divine necessity, which ibrbids a woman to sit at the 
head of a doctrinal Church. Her proper position is the head ot 
the ceremonial and dramatic Church, the Church of good-man- 
ners. The change about to take place may be imagined by ex- 
amining the three female curtains. The first curtain of Queen 
Mary united the monarchies of Scotland and England ; the se- 
cond united the Parliament of Scotland and England. What 
should the third unite?" ("The Coming Man," II., 330-33.5.) 

Wonderful to consider are the steps by which the Ine- 
vitable advances to its objective. Even the "wise-fool" 
James, son of Mary, and godson of Elizabeth, M^as a means 
to an end. An embryo in the w^ond3 of Mary, he felt the 
shock given to the mother by the murder, at her feet, of 
her favorite, her Ahitophel, Eizzio. The offspring of Darn- 
ley weak in will, and of Mary strong in will, his very inheri- 
ted feebleness of will was reqtiisite to the pacific unification 
of the Anglo-Scottish island. Entirely destitute offeree of 
character, he presented no sttimbling block to a perfect 
identification of adverse or conflicting interests. Had he 
been a strong personality, he would rot have tamely ac- 
quiesced in the judicial murder of his mother. Had he 
been a thorough Scotchman, he would have been unfit to as- 
sume the rule over Englishmen. Circumstances transmuted 
his very vices into negative virtues. The little good that he 
inherited from Mary, added to the great powder he inherited 
from Elizabeth, constituted him a timelv make-shift. The 



tendency to arbitrary king-sliijD transmitted to him tlirougli 
blood by his real mother, Mary, and through election by 
his god-mother, Elizabeth, developed into Charles I., an- 
other necessity of the time. Without such a one as the lat- 
ter, there had been no chance of a Cromwell, whose rise 
laid the bases of the Liberties of England. The Failure of 
the Connnonwealth paved the way for the ]-eturn of the 
Stuarts. Their vices and weaknesses, inherited from Mary, 
Queen of Scots, re-asserted themselves with opj^ortunities, 
and made the advent of William III. — another necessity for 
progress — King of Great Britain. By blood through his 
wife, and by might through his sword, and by choice through 
the temper of men's minds, he came, '*' the right man at the 
right time, " "to honor the crown of England " — as Hazlitt 
justly observed — "by the wearing of it." He raised the 
superstructure — the building of which would have been im- 
possible but for two such reigns as those of Charles 11. and 
James II. that were the products of a bigotry inherited 
from Mary, Queen of Scots, upon a foundation, laid strong 
and deep, by Cromwell and the Commonwealth. Those, 
again, could never have beconie realities but for the sense- 
less attempts at arbitrary power exhibited in the reigns of 
James I. and Charles I., heirlooms, direct, through son and 
grandson of Mary, Queen of Scots ; in whom the exhibi- 
tion of like qualities was the cause of the loss of her crown, 
the flight from her realm, and the scaffold at Fotheringay 
Castle. 



98 

"No man," says Wisdom, " is a necessity to God; " 
but pliilosophy also reveals tlie fact that Providence often 
makes tlie very deficencies of a mortal the apparent neces- 
sities that constitute the stepping-stones of the Inexorable 
in its strides, leading, or dragging, on Human Progress as 
it were, by the Jiand. 

The speech placed by Webster, in 1612, in his "emi- 
nently interesting" tragedy, "Tlie White Devil," reads 
like an echo of the opinion of the majority of the English 
and Scotch people upon Mary Stuart, when, 1587, the axe 
fell upon her neck : 

" Miserable creature ! 
If thou persist in this, 't is damnable. 
Do'st thou imagine thou can'st slide on blood. 
And not be tainted with a shameful fall ? 
Or, like the black and melancholick yew-tree, 
Do'st think to root thyself in dead men's graves. 
And yet to prosper ? Instruction to thee 
Comes like sweet showers to over-harden'd ground ; 
They wet, but pierce not deep. And so 1 leave thee, 
With all the furies hanging 'bout thy neck," 

Destiny judges not so. As in "Manfred," it declares 
the implacable "must be" of Mary Stuart. 

^^Made [her] a things which /, ivho pity not. 
Yet pardon those ivhopity." 





JAMES ERLE BOITHUILLE. 

[as hk himself wrote it. I 

JAMES HEP,BURNE, EELE OF BOTHELL 

[as THR scotch HKONi)UN( RIi I 1. j 



Monticello. — "' It is a wonder to your noble friends. 
That you, having, as 't were, enter'd the world 
With a free sceptre in your able hand, 
And to the use of nature well applied 
High gifts of learning, should in your prime age 
Neglect your [1 ?] awful throne for the soft down 
Of an insatiate bed. O, my lord. 
The drunkard, after all his lavish cups, 
Is dry, and then is sober ! so at length, 
When you awake from this lascivious dream. 
Repentance then will follow, like the sting 
Plac'd in the adder's tail. Wretcheil are ilii- prim es 
When fortune blasteth but a petty flowei- 
Of their unwieldy crowns, or ravisheth 
But one pearl from their sceptres ; but, alas ! 
U'hcfz they to ivilful shipwreck lose :^vod favu:. 
All princely titles perish with their itaiiie.'' 
John Webster's Tragedy. " The White Dc^'il. or I'ittoria Coromhona 



Mosby. — " Silence speaks best for me. His death once known. 

1 must forswear the fact, and give these tools 

To public justice — and not live in fear. (Aside.) 

Thy heart is mine. I ask but for my own. ( To Alicia.) 

Truth, gratitude, and honor bind you to me 

(~)r else you never lov'd." 

Alicia. — " Then why this struggle ? 
Not loved I " 

Geoki^.k. Lii.i.o's I'ragedy. ^^ Arden of Feversbaiii . 

94 




95 

'j N 1565 — wrote Laiuartiiie in 1859— 'vBothwell 
was no longer in the flower of liis youth ; but 
although he liad lost an eye h\ a w^ound, 
he was still hcoulsonie.''' '"'" '''' * 

"Blackwood cites Both well ' for his beauty, - 
which must have been natural, since even 
his enemy, Agnes Strickland, admits, 'Both- 
well does not apjDear to have aflected tine dress.' '"' ^'•His 
beauty tva/i not effeminate^ like Darnley's, nor melancholy 
and pensive like liizzio's, Imt of that rude and itianly 
order which gives to passion the energy of heroism.^'' He 
was tall, athletic, •'columnar;" wore a thick brown beard, 
with which his mustache mingled ; presented a stately 
warrior figure; was a consummate rider and master of the 
weapons of the day, an excellent commander, possessing 
all the attributes of a leader and general. " The licentious- 
ness of his manners. '" * ""'' had made him well 
known at the Court of Holyrood. He bad many attach- 
ments among the women of that Court. * -jf ^- 
One of those mistresses, Lady Reves. - * '^^ 
celebrated by Brantome, * ^ '"'^ M^as the con- 
fidante of the Queen, She had retained for Bothioell an 
admiration iiddch survived their intimaey. 

The Queen, wdio amused herself by interrogating her 
confidante regarding the exploits and amours of her old 
favorite, allowed herself to be gradually attracted toM'^ards 
him by a sentiment which, at first, assumed the appearance 



96 

of a mere good-natured curiosity. The confidante divining, 
or believing she divined, the yet unexpressed desires of the 
Queen, introduced BothM-ell one evening into the garden, 
and even to the apartment of her mistress. This secret 
meeting fore\'er sealed the ascendancy of Bothwell over 
the Queen. Her passion, though hidden, was, for that 
reason, still more commanding, and became for the first 
time apparent to all some weeks after this intervieM% on 
the occasion of a wound Bothwell had received in a Border 
feud, on the Marclies of which he had the connnand. On 
hearing of this, Mary * ^^ * i-ode, without resting 
by the way, to the HermitJige, where lie had been carried, 
assured herself with her own eyes of the danger he had 
run, and returned the same daj^ " [to Jedburgh]. "The 
Earl of Bothwell." writes at this time the French ambas- 
sador to Catharine of Medici, "• is out of danger^ at which 
the Queen is loell i)leased. To have lost him would, have 
been no small loss indeed to her.'''' 

She herself avows her anxiety in verses composed on 
the occasion : 

'• When tirst my master he became, 
For him I shed full mauy a tear ; 
But now this new and dire alarm 
Destroys m me botli life and fear ! " 

'•^ After his cure Bothwell became master of the kingdom.'''' 

"The career of Earl Bothwell had been one tissue of incon- 
sistencies.'" Nevertheless, he did not by any means deserve the 



97 

abuse poured upon him, amounting to what Robert Hall aptly 
styled "distilled damnation." 

" Revolting at the ecclesiastical executions which about the 
period of James V.'s death so greatly disgusted the Scottish 
people, [James, not] his father became a reformer at an early 
period in life." His father, "like all the leaders in that great 
movement which was fated to convulse the land, accepted a 
secret pension from the English court to maintain his wild 
extravagance; but when blows were struck and banners dis- 
played, when the army of the Protestants took the field against 
Mary of Guise [Queen Dowager Regent], young Bothwell, in 
1559, assumed the command of her French auxiliaries, and acted 
with vigor and valor in hei' cause. 

"Afterwards he went on an embassy to Paris ; where, by 
the gallantry of his air, the splendor of his retinue, and the 
versatility of his talents for flattery, diplomacy, and intrigue, to- 
gether with his dutiful and graceful demeanor, he particularly 
recommended himself to Mary of vScotland, the young queen of 
France. 

" Four years afterwards,when Mary was seated on her father's 
throne, he had returned to Scotland with her ; but engaging in a 
desperate conspiracy foi' the destruction of his mortal foe, the Earl 
of Moray, then in the zenith of his power and royal fivor, he had 
been indefinitely banished the court and kingdom. Filled with 
rage against Moray, who wielded the whole power at the court 
and council of bis too facile sister, BothAvell, finding his star 
thus completely eclipsed by a rival to whom he was fully equal 
in bravery and ambition, though inferior in subtlety and guile, and 
that his strong and stately castles, his fertile provinces and rich 
domains, were gifted away to feudal and political foemen, sought 
the Danish court, where he had intrigued so far that at the period 
when our story opens (1560 or '5?) a conspiracy had been formed 
13 



98 

to place all the fortresses of Orkney and Shetland in the hands of 
Frederick II., who, in return, was to create Lord Both well Prince 
of the Northern Isles. This plot had gradually been developing ; 
and the Earl, in furtherance of his daring and revengeful scheme, 
was now on his way back to Orkney, wliere he possessed vari- 
ous iiefs and adherents, especially one powerful baron of the 
house of Balfour of Monkquhanny, 

"To a face and form that were singularly noble and prepos- 
sessing, tlie unfortunate Earl of Bothwell united a bearing alike 
gallant and courtly; while his known courage and suavity of 
manner, in the noonday of his fortune, made him the ftivorite 
equally of the gi-eat and the hund^le." "Beginning from his 
very youth, * * * immediately after the death 

of his father, who Avas one of the first Erles of the realm, and 
his house was the foremost in reputation by reason of the noble- 
ness and antiquity of the same, and great offices that were 
hereditary in the family." (Maiy Stuart.) '•'•He teas the dar- 
ling of the common people for his courage and liberality^ and 
the envy of the court.'''' "James Hepl)urne, a man generally es- 
teemed and applauded." (Crawford, 4:2.) Bothwell Avas "One 
of the handsomest men of his time," as old Crawford. tells us, 
and Gilbert Stuart clinches this by admitting that " When he 
won the favor of the Queen, he was in the prime of youth, and 
extremely handsome." Even Murray's panegyrist agrees wdth 
Mary's champion, Stuart. To sum up the matter, it would 
seem that if Bothwell must rank among the fallen angels, he 
was nevertheless invested with all the glorious external attrac- 
tions of the grandest of the condemned celestial hierarchy; not 
a sleek, cunning, plausible, however brave, but not bold, Belial; 
but an audacious, fearless and impulsive Moloch. Perhaps Both- 
well was in reality what Rodogune appears, in Nicholas RoAve's 
tragedy of tlie 'Royal Convert' {circa 1700), "a personage truly 



99 

tragical, of high spirit and violent passions, great with tempestu- 
ous dignity, and wicked, ioitJi a soul that would have been 
HEROIC, if it had been virtuous," according to Dr. Johnson's 
ideas. 

" Without being yet a confirmed profligate, he had plunged 
deeply into all the excesses and gaieties of the age, especially 
when in France and Italy ; for at home in Scotlnnd, when under 
the Draconian laws and iron rule of the new [Reformed (Knox's)] 
regime^ the arena of such follies, even to a powerful baron, was 
very circumscribed." "Though of a happy and thoughtless 
temperament," "he was "a reckless, and often (when crossed in 
his pride and purposes) of a ferocious disposition." 

" His heart was naturally good, and his first impulses wei-e 
ever those of warmth, generosity, and gratitude ; and these 
principles, under proper direction, when united to his talent, 
courage, and ambition, might have made him an ornament to 
his country. His early rectitude of purpose had led him to 
trust others too indiscriminately ; his warmth, to sudden at- 
tachments and dangerous quarrels; his generosity, to lavish ex- 
travagance.* Early in hfe he is s;ud to have loved deeply and 



* Buckingham, another partial advocate for Mary (I., 171), men- 
tions "His extreme wealth," — ("The greatest landlord in this country" 
[Southern Scotland], Pfcm a])ud Goodall, I., 139) "his valor" and "pre- 
eminence in bravery and martial destruction;" "glorious as had been 
his career," (B, I., 184); — " of our own subjects there was none, either for 
the reputation of his house, or for the worthiness of himself, as well in 
wisdom, valor and all other good qualities, to be preferred or yet com- 
pared to him." (Mary Stuart, herself, 1567.) "Nor shall we omit his 
service done a little time before in the wars against England, wherein 
he gave great proof of his valiantness, courage and good conduct, that 
notwithstanding he was then of very young age, yet he was chosen out 
as most fit of all our nobility to be our Lieutenant General upon the 
Borders, having the whole charge as well to defend us as to assail. At 



ioo 



unhappily, but with all the ardor of which first passion is capable 
of firing a brave and generous heart. Who the object of his 



which time [15(55], he made many nobie enterprises not unknown to 
both the reahns, by which he acquired a singular reputation in botli." 
(Mary Stuart, 1565.) "He was unanimously chosen General to the 
Army when very youni>', merely upon the score of his bravery." 
(Crawford, 53.) " Among the noblemen whose names constantly meet 
our eye" [1560-1535], was one" * * * "whose after career jus- 
tifies us in selecting him, and indulging him with a more special notice 
James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, the descendant of a long line of illus- 
trious ancestry, succeeded, in 1556, to the estates and honors of his 
fiither, Patrick, and although a member of the Reformed Church, 
attached himself finally to the party of the Kegent, in opposition to the 
rebellious Murray, being appointed by her lieutenant general of her 
forces and honored with special marks of her favor and approbation ; 
hut Ms LOYALTY at length compelled Ms retreat into France. There 
he entered into the service of Mary, was constituted Captain of the 
[Royal French] Scottish Guard, and obtained several marks of distinc- 
tion for his enterprise and valor, and on his return to Scotland, 1560 
[with the Queen I was noted by Throckmorton as a 'glorious, rash and 
hazardous young man,' whose motions were to be watched, and whose 
actions were to be feared by his foes. Although a firm and consistent 
Protestant, refusing even to sacrifice in form to the religious notions of 
his queen, yet his loyalty and consistency, — the more remarkable when 
contrasted with the duplicity and villainy of many of those around him — 
procured him the favor of his ifueen. But Murray was his enemy, and 
summoned him to a public trial, on a charge of having conspired against 
his life, and as Murray came to the place appointed for the trial with a 
body of five thousand men, Bothwell thought it most prudent to avoid 
the impending danger by departure from the country. AVhen, however, 
a short lapse of time had exposed to Mary the baseness other brother, 
and when, unmindful of the favor and .advancement which he owed to 
her, he had taken up arms to oppose her marjiage, she began to per- 
ceive how little weight was to be accorded to the assertions of such an 
accuser; and, recalling Bothwell from his exile, she placed him at the 
head of the royal troops ;— - * * raised to the lienor and 



101 

love had been was then unknown ; one report averred her to be 
a French princess, and tlte Maoister Absalom Beyer slirewdly 



dignity whicli his past service and loyalty well deserved, while his ac- 
cuser, Murray, was suffering in exile the merited punishment of his 
treason. To attempt to sketch the character of Bothwell, is to tread on 
ground so insecure and so disputed, that prudence would induce an 
abstinence from so dangerous a theme, but justice Jtan Tdgh claims to be 
regarded; and, even at the risk of offending the deeply-rooted prejudice 
of many, I shall venture upon the attempt. Setting aside, for the 
moment, the truth of his assumed participation in the murder of Darn- 
ley, [Scoto-Brittanicus alludes to "his supposed share;" in that evil 
deed,] * * * we shall, I think, see nothing in his general 
character which will merit the extreme oblocpiy which has been cast 
upon it ever since the age in whicli he lived. Bravery, beyond the 
reach of doubt; loyalty which could never be shaken by the JdgJiest teinp- 
tations which were offered fur its desertion ; and fidelity to all the t7-usts 
which were reposed in him, are elements of character which certainly 
deserve some portion of our respect. But it would be useless and un- 
candid to deny that these high qualities were clouded by many faults, 
even if they were not obscured by weighty crimes. An ambition which 
was jealous of the sliglitest obstacle to its advance ; a degree of political 
recklessness which was, unfortunately, very characteristic of the Scot- 
tish aristocracy in that age, and which was augmented, if not caused, 
by the license which they permitted to themselves in [their] depredations 
upon the church, and which led them to look with some degree of 
contempt upon religion itself; and a want of scruple with regard to the 
means which he employed for the attainment of the objects he desired, 
are very dark traits in his disposition, and were, unhappity, not pecu- 
liar to himself But to Mary none of these less favorable characteristics 
were likely to become known. The mutual position in which they were 
placed exhibited to her only his loyalty, his courage and his fidelity ; 
and she liberally rewarded these : while she would have shrunk from the 
contemplation of the other elements of his disposition." Buckingham's 
"Mary Stuart" (1., 91-t)5). Bothwell must have been a very lovable 
man, since women once in love with him never ceased to feel the warm- 
est interest in his fortunes, and continued to be not only his friends, but 
his agents for the furtherance of his interests." 



102 

guesses, that this means no olliei- than the Dauphiness, Mary 
Stuart — but of this more anon. 

''There was noAV a dash of the cynic in his nature, and he 
was fast schooling himself to consider wonien merely what he 
was in his gayer moments, habitually averring them to be, the 
mere instruments of pleasure, and tools of ambition. 

"The unhappy influence of that ill-placed or ujirequited love, 
had thrown a long shadow on the career of Bothwell; and as 
the sun of liis fortune set, that shadow grew darker and deeper. 
But there were times, when his cooler reflection had tamed 
his wild impulses, that a sudden act of generosity and chivalry 
would evince the greatness of that heart, which an unhappy 
combiiuition of circumstances, a prospect the most alluring that 
ever opened to man, and the influence of evil counsel spurring 
on a restless ambition, hurried into those dark and terrible 
schemes of power and greatness that blighted his name and fame 
forever!" Buckingham adds (1,215), "Bothwell Avas a man 
whose early career should have led us to hope for a blighter 
close, and whose character is one of the darkest mysteries which 
history presents to our contemplation. His unconquerable 
fidelity to his sovereign, amid all temptations which surrounded 
him, had procured so large a share of her favor, that it was not 
very w^onderful that he should have dared to aspire even to the 
highest honor, and look to her hand as the reward of his long 
and loyal service.'' 

It is all well eiiongh for niodeniized manhood in swal- 
low tails and white chokers, who scarcely enjoy a real 
movement of the soul thronghout their money-seeking or 
money-wasting existences, or mawkish sentimental woman- 
hood cramped within their Worth-stayed dresses, to sit in 
judgment upon Bothwell. But where is the man who, to 



108 

attain the woman he lovet; — for hjve covers all — would not 
sweep a rival from his path as quickly as an insect, if he 
dared. The trouble with Botliwell was. lie made a blun- 
der.* As was said of the '•'•Massacre of St. Bartholomew " 
and the '•'Revocation of the Edict of Nantes,'' and the 
"Military Execution of Glencoe," and the "'Assassination of 
the Duke d'Enghien, " they M'ere w-orse tlian crimes, they 
were stupid blunders. Had Botliwell been a refined Italian 
or Frenchman, he "would have accomjjlished tlie same result 
without noise and without display. Darnley would suddenly 
and simply have ceased to be. T^nfortunately, they did not 
know how to do those things properly in Scotland. They 
were bunglers, hacking an enemy, or rival, or oppressor to 
pieces, as they did Archbishop Sharpe even as late as 1679. 
Morton was the only one who seems to have profited by 
Continental examples. Mar dined with him oiie day, and 
after his meal felt uncomfortable and died, vacating the Re- 
gency in favor of his host. The Earl of Atholl supped with 
Morton 24th April, 1578, and, curious coincidence, likewise 
died of indigestion next day. Perhaps the copper casseroles 
were not cleansed of verdigris, or a toadstool got among the 

* Until within two days before the murder, Bothwell wished to do it 
decently, with cold steel, and openly, "a la Caesar Borgia," the boldest 
of executives when any one stood in the way ; but his associates in- 
duced him to change his intention, (A. S. M. S., I., 891). Why ? That 
the explosion of the powder might blurt out the truth and burthen 
Bothwell, not them, with an universal obloquy undeserved, as can 
be proved — which has lasted until this very day. 



i04 

mushrooms. Bothwell was rutler in liis ministrations, but 
the object and end M^ere the same. Why overwhehn him 
with obloquy and let Bothwellhaugh, Kircaldy, Crawford, 
Morton and an hundred others go free. Tlie fact is he 
blundered, and ISTemesis did not mitigate a pang to the 
mortal or his memory. He is the Qildipus of modern trag- 
edy in his suifering and the CEgisthus of evnl repute. Vis- 
conti does not receive the thousandth part of the execra- 
tion heaped upon, liini and yet the Italian was as fiendishly 
cruel to women as to men. Bothwell intended to blow up 
one, and Yisconti tortured hundreds to death and had them 
torn Avith his bloodhounds or crushed in his iron telescop- 
ing prisons. The Milanese is scarcely alluded to, and the 
Scotchman is damned in prose, poetry, ronuince and history. 
He is a j^erfect victim of the bitterest "Irony of Fate." 

" Happy is the man," exclaims Virgil, "'who is skilled 
in tracing effects up to their causes." Equally happy 
should be the author who honestly endeavors to do so, and 
is enabled to embody, agreably, the results of his labors. 
This is strictly apposite to the consideration of Bothwell. 
The cause of the obloquy heaped upon the "fair," "the 
great" "Erie" w^as, in the first instance, his original suc- 
cess against the finally triumphant party, especially in 
winning tlie hand of Mary, and in the second his failure to 
maintain himself in the possession of what he had so boldly 
M'on. As Kant remarks, "Success is justly considered the 
it-st of merit, even where it is attributable to an unworthy 



105 

origin," literally "To have the conclusion right is the 
chief point (requisite), even if it may be done (reached) 
from false premises." Victor Hugo is more generous and 
honest, but less worldly-wise. He declares that "History 
is the mere dupe of Success." 

While so many regard Mary Stuart as resembling "The 
White Devil," of Webster's Tragedy of " Yittoria Corom- 
bona," first printed in 1612, others, as numerous, seem to 
contemplate Bothwell, as displayed in the character of 
"Schedoni, the Monk," in Miss Radcliffe's novel, "The 
Italian," published in 1797. 

"The White Devil of Venice," in the opinion of Charles 
Lamb, " sets off a bad cause so speciously, and pleads with such 
an innocent boldness, that we seem to see that matchless beauty 
of her face which inspires such gay confidence into her, and are 
ready to expect when she had done her pleadings, that her very 
judges, her accusers, the grave ambassadors who sit as specta- 
tors, and all the court, will rise and make proffer to defend her 
in spite of the utmost conviction of her guilt." 

On the other hand, the Monk is " as strongly drawn a charac- 
ter as ever stalked through the regions of romance, equally de- 
testable for the crimes he has formerly perpetrated and those 
which he is willing to commit ; formidable from his talents and 
. energy ; at once a hypocrite and a profligate, unfeeling, unre- 
lenting, and implacable. The romance in which he dominated 
abounds — according to Sir Walter Scott — with " the new and 
powerful machinery afforded by the Popish religion, when es- 
tablished in its paramount superiority and thereby [the author] 
had at her disposal monks, spies, dungeons, the mute obedience 
14 



106 

of the bigot and the dark and domineering spirit of the crafty 
priest." Any sucli implication on Bothwell is cruel ! 

These references to works of fiction are the more justifi- 
able as there are many facts elicited in them that escape 
historians or are neglected as unimportant ; whereas they 
are tlie solvents of much that is otherwise either sealed or 
misunderstood.'* The great Prussian general, von Moltke, 



* There are two tragedies of the time of Elizabeth, "Ardenof 
Feversham," 1592, and "The Warning to Fair Women," 1599, which 
seem to have been founded on the results of the connection between 
Mauy and Bothwell — pronounced in the Scottish dialect, "Bothel." 
The former is sometimes attributed to Shakespeare. It was translated 
into German by Tieck. A tragedy on the same subject was composed 
by George LiJlo, 1693-1739. Arden was a gentleman of Feversham, 
who was murdered by his wife, Alicia, and her paramour, Mosby. In 
" The Warning to Fair Women," a London merchant is murdered in 
like manner as Arden and Darnley, by his wife and her lover. Both- 
well's temptation is exemplified in the lines of Shakespeare's poem, 
" A Lover's Complaint," 

"O father, what a hell of witchcraft lies 
In the small orb of one particular tear." — 

one of the many tears shed by Mary over the conduct of the ill-condi- 
tioned and ungrateful Darnley, the more fearful in their effects on 
Bothwell since the latter were augmented by the belief that he had been 
supplanted in his suit and hopes by the successfnl rival who caused 
them to be shed. Again, in " The Maid's Tragedy," 1619, Beaumont 
and Fletcher may have derived their inspiration from a perusal of the 
famous "Casket Letters," from Mary to Bothwell, in portraying the 
character of Uvadne, "Her naked, unblushing impudence," says Haz- 
litt, "her utter insensibility to any motive but her own pride and incli- 
nation — her heroic superiority to any signs of shame or scruples of con- 
science are well described." 



107 

declares that ]3oets alone confer abiding fame, and it is very 
likely that a more truthful record of Bothwell will survive in 
verse and romance than in works styled history which, as 
a rule, are mere exliibitions of party spirit and prejudice. 
Swinburne, in his " Chastelard " and "Bothwell," is just 
towards the latter and affords a fair idea of his love, rise 
and fall ; and White Melville, in his novel, ' ' The Queen' s 
Maries," exhibits more evidences of close search for facts 
in connection with the Earl than the majority of historians. 
The same remark holds better in respect to James Grant's 
" Bothwell," and he refers to incidents in James Hepburn's 
early manhood which have been neglected by almost every 
authority, and yet they colored his whole after-life. That 
Bothwell, sent out to France in 1558 by the Queen Regent, 
fell in love with Mary Stuart before she married the Dau- 
phin, is alluded to in chronicles of the day, and also that he 
was not the desperate man he afterwards became until 
Darnley made his appearance and crushed for the nonce 
his hopes. 

It is very remarkable that Catherine de Medicis, while 
rejecting the divine truths of revelation, caused seas of blood 
to be shed in the religious struggles she fomented and 
was a firm believer in astrology. The royal sorceress 
one day consulted her favorite seer as to the fate of Mary 
Stuart. ISTostradamus answered, "I perceive blood," and 
predicted that the young Queen would be a victim to the 
fatal heritage of her race. When Mary was about sixteen 



108 

years old, and when as yet she was scarcely betrothed in 
form to the Dauphin, Bothwell, in the course of one of his 
numerous voyages between Scotland and the Continent, 
saw " Za Beinette cC Ecosse " and fell in love with her. He 
was then about twenty-two years of age, and although any 
suit at that time was hopeless for him, he was always true 
to this love at first sight. After the death of her hus- 
band, Francis, the two noblemen who afterwards success- 
ively became her husbands, visited her in France. Darnley 
was scarcely more than a boy, but Bothwell, already, in 
1560 exhibiting rare ability, had become a man of mark. 
He remained in attendance upon Mary for upwards of four 
months, and she consulted him continually on matters of 
the highest importance and placed implicit reliance in his 
judgment. Agnes Strickland, with whom the Earl is no 
favorite, admits that he undoubtedly possessed literary 
talent and sufficient political importance to merit the 
closest supervision of the English ambassador in France, 
who notified his government that he exhibited qualities of 
the highest order, on which account it behooved his ad- 
versaries to keep a sharp eye upon him [III., 159-60]. He 
had already lost the sight of one eye (the left), but neither 
in a dishonorable manner nor in the course of a piratical 
cruise, as is almost invariably charged. The wound which 
destroyed its vision was received in a personal encounter 
[v. 228. 2] with Cockburn of Ormiston, when, in November, 
1559, he tore the English subsidy from that agent of the 



109 

Rebel or Confederate Lords. Althongli the sight was gone, 
the organ was apparently uninjured, and the scar which re- 
mained, so far from being unsightly, was becoming to the 
martial visage of a born soldier. Miss Strickland, besides 
acknowledging his cultivation and capacity, is likewise 
forced to concede that Bothwell, in his hatred to Romanisnj, 
was a staunch Reformer, and so determined in his principles 
that, in spite of his ardent love for Mary, the Queen, could 
never induce him to concede the slightest conformity to the 
observances of the creed of which she — except when under 
his influence — was so devoted and zealous a member. 

One of the charges brought against Bothwell, after he 
accompanied Mary back to Scotland, was that he intended 
to slay Murray and carry off Mary and wed her. It is a 
great pity he did not execute this plan, if he in reality enter- 
tained it (see 35-36, and note supra). Was there anything 
surprising in Bothwell' s hatred of Murray, who had been 
and was his life-long bitterest enemy and a cold-blooded vil- 
lain, neither more nor less, in every M'^ay, towards man and 
woman, where it served his purposes. If no other proof 
existed of this charge, his treatment of Christian, the 
Countess and unfortunate heiress of Buchan, would establish 
the fact. Having first sought the young lady's hand, he 
stripped her of her large possessions, and when he had im- 
poverished her and enriched himself, he forced her to 
marry his uterine step-brother, far beneath her in rank. 
In this connection it is curious to learn that Murray's 



no 

brother, another bastard ofJames Y., John, Prior of Col- 
dingham, married Bothwell's sister, and Bothwell himself, 
after Darnley's pnblic marriage, married Jane Gordon, 
daughter of tlie Roman Catholic Earl of Huntly, whom he, 
as a Protestant, assisted Murray to ruin when the latter 
was the Prime Minister of Mary. The political vagaries 
of this jDeriod are utterly incomprehensible. Diabolical is 
almost too polite a term to apply to them. They present 
no redeeming aspect. 

Whatever apparent or real temporary animosity Maiy at 
any period displayed towards Bothwell was entirely due to 
tlie influence of Murray, which was succeeded by the inexpli- 
cable ascendancy of Rizzio ; that was especially due to the 
fact that he was a secret agent of the Jesuits and the Pope. 
He it was engineered the courtship of the papist, Darnley, 
who made his appearance at a time wdien Bothwell was 
under a cloud, through the machinations of Murray and his 
own tendency to frolic. Those prejudiced against Both- 
well conceal that Murray wanted to poison him. 

Napoleon remarked, on the way to Marengo, that if he 
was killed at that time, his career, brilliant as it had been, 
would not fill ten pages of history. The whole story of 
the gradual conquest and dominion of the Saxons in Eng- 
land is confined in ordinary histories to about as many 
pages as it occupied centuries. The same remarks apply 
to the narrative of a great many historical phases, but not 
to the case of Mary Stuart. Tlie most important portion 



Ill 

of her career fills only a little over two years; yet it lias 
been the subject of hundreds of volumes, and has enlisted 
the pens of some of the ablest writers in every language. 
Why ? !N"ot for the reason th^t most people supjDose ; but be- 
cause she was an agency to throw down the past, control the 
j)resent and assist in erecting the future. She M^as the socket- 
joint on which turned the fate of the Reformation in the Brit- 
ish Isles. Yes, and thus in many respects, upon her and 
Both well, pivoted the impulse, if not all the future of Anglo- 
Saxondom — which completes the whole of — humanity. 

The fact that portentous events did hinge upon her in- 
volves inevitably the close consideration of Bothwell. 

If Mary was the first, Bothwell was the second great 
quantity in the equation of the times, and their intimate 
connection lasted, clearly visible, but a little over a year ; 
recognizably but little over two years, although percept- 
ibly to close observation for a much longer period. As the 
crisis of the fortunes of Mary and of Scotland occurred 
within the two years of the intimate relations of Mary 
with Bothwell, this it is makes him so important a factor in 
the eifects developing therefrom, which were gradually felt 
in ever-increasing circumference, until it may be said that, 
like the circle in the water, cited as a parallel by Shaks- 
peare, the ripple set in motion by the loves of Mary and 
Bothwell have broken and to-day break, according to 
times, places, and circumstances — upon the horizon, 
nearer or farther, of human development. 



112 

Raumer — as quoted — .justly observed that there are fated 
individuals — using the word fated in an unhaj^py sense — 
and fated families. This remark might be extended to 
embrace fated nations and fated races. Mary Stuart's life 
was one tissue of mistakes. These errors were neither her 
fault nor her crime. E'very human heing is a product, and 
the elements which entered into her creation produced 
effects such as must inevitably result from an amalgama- 
tion like to theirs in any power, so to speak, exerting the 
influence of a sovereign, as pertinently observed by the au 
thor of " The Modern Hagar " on the death of a child im- 
mediately after its birth, "A chain of evil that might have 
war^^ed souls for a century — unto the third and fourth 
generation — was broken in the welding." 

BotliM^ell was a much nobler product than Mary. His 
antecedents were better. The Hepburns were greater men 
in their sphere than the Stuarts in theirs, although the lat- 
ter occupied a higher one, a throne. Mary's race or com- 
ponents were bad on both sides and in every direction. 
This was clearly demonstrated in the author's "Study," 
' ' Mary, Queen of Scots. ' ' Both well' s father was a wild slip, 
" a gay Lothario," but not worse than his compeers. His 
grandfather was a grand character. The record of his 
mother, Agnes Sinclair, ' ' a virtuous lady of the highest 
rank" (A. S. — Y. 229, 1) is unstained. She was divorced by 
a self-seeking husband, planning for a higher, but not a bet- 
ter mate, the Queen -Dowager -Regent, Mary of Lorraine. 



113 

Agnes lived a good wife ever, an affectionate niotlier, care- 
ful of tlie interests of her only son, and died, leaving all she 
possessed to his illegitimate son (Schiern, 4-53.). His 
legitimate daughter by Qneen Mary disappeared, of her 
all certain traces — as has been shown — ^have been lost. 

Agnes Strickland (Q. of S. — Y. 316) connnenting on this 
birth uses very unsatisfactory language, " There is no sub- 
stantial reason to believe, * * ^- j^\^q^ 
Mary ever gave birth to any other child " than James VI. 
"Substantial!" What does she mean by this? She can- 
not disprove it, and equally credible witnesses affirm it. 
Throckmorton mentions her pregnancy as admitted by her- 
self. Miss Strickland (IV. 53) mentions her " painful and 
dangerous illness" at Lochleven, "exactly nine months 
from the period," Both well is charged to have forced her 
in Dunbar Castle, and the good and virtuous Castlenau and 
Le Laboureur, Counsellor and Almoner to the King of 
France, attest the existence, fate and demise of a daughter. 
All the evidence against the birth of this unhappy child is ne- 
gatwe ; all the proof in favor of it is positive. In a court of 
justice which of these pleadings would prevail? Throck- 
morton had no interest in misrepresenting Mary's admis- 
sion of her pregnancy. Miss Strickland, a panegyrist and 
partial advocate, concedes the painful illness at the natural 
epoch, and also eulogises Castlenau as honest, wlio, the 
latter, furnishes us with the evidence of the birth. Where 
bigotry and prejudice and interest combine to deny a fact 
15 



114 

which disinterested records confirm, whoever doubts the 
hitter rtinks liiniself with the former, who belong to the 
class who ''neither will they be persuaded, though one 
rose from the dead." 

God bless the good mothers : like Both well's, Agnes 
Sinclair, wlioever is blessed with such is blessed indeed ! 

In many respects Bothwell w^as an eminent man. He 
was a brave soldier and a capable leader. The French 
ambassador, du Croc, a veteran, admired his dispositions 
for the last battle he set in array. He was a statesman, 
indeed, for his times, and as a politician he would have 
ranked with the highest if he had been less honest. He 
was a patriot in the best sense of the word, devoid of 
hypocrisy and a believer in the religion, or rather creed, 
he had chosen without aflfectation or cant. As a subordi- 
nate he was an extraordinary example of fidelity amid 
almost universal faithlessness. His was a lovable nature, 
and powerful in inspiring a corresponding passion. 

"I held the Queen in no captivity [at Dunbar], hut I 
loved and honored her with such Jtum ility as she deserved^ ' ' 
are the words of Bothwell, when with years and captivity 
he had time for refiection and had no reason to misrepre- 
sent the slightest fact. 

It is curious how much can be proved through the self- 
contradicting testimony of his traducers. Their evidence de- 
monstrates the falsehood of Buchanan's inconsistent un- 
truths and Brantome's prejudiced Gallic misrepresentation. 



115 

When, in 1563, Bothwell, like Harold, the great son of God- 
win, was driven to an inimical shore by a tempest — in the 
same manner as the grand Saxon had been — he M^as unjustly 
seized and unrighteously imprisoned by the mean Eliza- 
beth. Just like Bothwell, the subsequent victor of Stam- 
ford Bridge and the victim of Sanguelac was dishonorably 
trepanned by William the Conqueror. Mary Stuart exer- 
cised efficient influence for the man she loved ; Edward 
the Confessor had not or did not exert any in favor of the 
Thegn, in whom he trusted implicitly, even while he did 
not feel for him any aftection. At this time the English 
agent, Eandal, or Randolph, who especially had occasioned 
Bothwell' s detention, writes to Cecil, dated Edinburgh, 
3d June, 1563 "I beseech your grace, send him where 
you will, only not to Dover Castle, not so much for fear 
of my aged mother, but my sister is young and has many 
daughters.'' JSTow does it stand to reason that a man, stig- 
matized by Buchanan as resembling "an ape in fine 
clothes," and by Brantome as "the ugliest and awkward- 
est man ever seen," could have been dangerous among 
women of rank ? A second Englishman— another of the 
accredited meddlers in Scottish affairs, who was particu- 
larly hostile to Bothwell — Sir William Drury, Ma*iting to 
Cecil, charges the Earl with "inordinateness toward wo- 
men." When illicit connections occur betM^een cultivated 
men and women in the higher ranks of society, as a rule, 
the man is not the seducer, but the seduced. To this rule 



P 



116 

there are exceptions ; but in this case, as in all others, the 
exceptions prove the rule. Respectable people, so styled, 
condemn the man because it is the fashion to do so and 
suits the purposes of moralists. Again, mannerism is very 
frequently mistaken for immorality, and the refinement of 
courtesy — sometimes styled gallantry — for absolute vice. 
The judgment of this world is almost always fallacious. 
The proverb, "there is no smoke without fire," is about 
as true in its general application as many of the compre- 
hensive adages wliich will not bear critical investigation. 
There may be a huge column of smoke with a very little 
fire, and a fearful conflagration with hardly any visil^le 
smoke. Kindle a small fire, and heap damp combustibles 
upon it without preventing the circulation of air, and it 
will send up a veritable pillar of smoke which can be seen 
for miles. Haul together hundreds of loads of dry brush, 
apply the torch to windward, and in a few minutes a con- 
flagration \vill ensue which will snap out tongues of flame 
laterally that make it perilous to stand in the vicinity, and 
shoot u]3 a pillar of fire that often rivals in altitude the or- 
dinary evolutions of smoke. The author has burned huge 
piles of damp leaves and vegetable matter, and also thou- 
sands of loads of brush, green and dry, in clearing up ex- 
tensive woodlands throughout a period of forty years, and 
knows these parallels to be correct and these facts to be 
true. Identical deductions hold good with regard to the 
passions of individuals. The same decision in the Court 



117 

of Love will not apply with justice to scarcely any two 
cases brought before it. 

" The mind hath a thousand eyes, 
The heart but one ; 
Yet the life of a whole life dies 
When love is done." 

But, to cease from moralizing at large, and to return to 
the immediate consideration of Bothwell. Let us see what 
unprejudiced gentlemen wrote about him at the age of 
twenty-eight to thirty. 

At the same time while Eandolph was persecuting Both- 
well so bitterly, one of the young Earl's keepers in Eng- 
land, Sir Henry Percy, recommended liim to Cecil, with 
the testimony that "he is very wise, and not the man he 
was reported to be." " His behavior has been courteous 
and honorable, keeping his promise. " ( " Calendar of State 
Papers, Foreign Series," 1563, p. 129 ; 1561-5, p. 83. Sir 
John Forster also writes at that time to Cecil, that Both- 
well, ' ' all time of his abode here, behaved himself as to 
him appertained." ("Calendar of State Papers, Foreign 
Series," 1561-5, p. 75.) 

It is a strong point in his favor — however the over-vir- 
tuous may desire to reject the evidence — his mistresses, 
even after the more intimate tie had been severed, con- 
tinued to the last most faithful and active instruments for 
the advancement of his fortunes. 

It is, indeed, very interesting to discover how women. 



118 

once in love with Botliwell, never lost their interest in 
him, and absolutely, contrary to the rule in such cases, be- 
came his most faithful agents in furthering his plans. For 
instance, if there is any truth in the private records of the 
times, Lady Reres, one of his intimates, was his most 
effectual ally in bringing him and Queen Mary together. 
She was the daughter of the Earl of Angus, and cousin of 
the Earl of Morton. Her sister, Margaret Douglas, known 
as Lady Buccleuch, wife of Sir Walter Scott, of Buccleuch 
(according to Froude, IX., 7 (2), see Scheirn, 53 (3 and 4), 
54 (2), 55 (1) ), was another of the many chere amies of the 
Earl, and also influential between the Queen and him, so 
much so, indeed, that she was accused of accomplishing her 
purposes by witchcraft, a charge which, by-the-bye, was 
likewise brought against the Earl, and urged vindictively 
against him by Buchanan, the Scotch ambassador to 
Frederick II. of Denmark, when Botliwell' s extradition 
was the subject of so much negotiation and pressure by the 
Regency of Scotland and the Government of England. 

It is still more curious to observe how every writer, even 
those the most abandoned to their Scottish Mariolatry, 
when conscience and circumstances compel them to admit 
the merits of Botliwell, fall back on the scurrilous Bu- 
chanan, " the prince of literary prostitutes," to neutralize 
their unwilling praise with his calumnies, or else refer to an 
inimical witness, Brantome, who it is not certain (Burton, 
lY., 174, and others), ever saw Botliwell with his own e^^es. 



119 

" James Hepburne, Earl of Botliwell, though some of the 
leading features of his character had hardly shown themselves 
at the period of which we speak [1561, when Mary returned to 
Scotland], merits, nevertheless, from the part he subsequently 
acted, especial notice at present. He had succeeded his father 
in his titles and estates in the year 1556, when he was five or 
six and twenty years of age. [This is a gross error; he was 
only nineteen or twenty. He was born in 1536 or 1537, 
and only nineteen or twenty at the time referred to, and 
but fifty when he died.] He enjoyed not only large estates, 
but the hereditary oflices of Lord High Admiral of Scot- 
land, Sherifii" of Berwick, Haddington and Edinburgh, and 
Baillie of Lauderdale. With the exception of the Duke of 
Chatelherault, he was the most powerful nobleman in the 
Southern districts of Scotland. Soon after coming to his 
titles he began to take an active share in public business. In 
addition to his other oflices, he was appointed the Queen's Lieu- 
tenant on the Borders, and Keeper of Hermitage Castle, by the 
Queen Regent, to whom he ahoays remained faithful, in oppo- 
sition to the Lord James [Murray], and what was then termed 
the English faction. He went over to France on the death of 
Francis II., to pay his duty to Mary, and on his return to Scot- 
land was by her intrusted with the discharge of an important 
com')nission regardhig the government. Though all former dif- 
ferences were now supposed to have been forgotten, there was 
not, nor did there ever exist, a very cordial agi'eement between 
the Earls of Murray and Bothwell. They were both about the 
same age, but their dispositions were very different. Murray 
was self-possessed, full of foresight, prudent and wary. Both- 
well was bold, reckless and extravagant. His youth had been 
devoted to every species of dissipation ; and even in manhood 
he seemed more intent on pleasure than on business. This was 



/ 

/ 



120 

a sort of life which Murray despised, and perhaps he calculated 
that Bothwell would never aim at any other. But, though 
guided by no steady principles, and devoted to licentiousness, 
Bothwell was, nevertheless, not the mere man of pleasure. He 
was all his life celebrated for daring and laioless exploits^ and 
vanity or passion were motives whose force he was never able 
to resist. Unlike Murray, who, when he had an end in view, 
made his advances toward it as cautiously as an Indian hunter, 
Bothwell dashed right through, as careless of the means by 
which he was to accomplish his object as of the consequences 
that were to ensue. His manner ivas of that /rank, open, and 
tmcalculatijig kind, which frequently catches a superficial ob- 
server. They who did not study him more closely were apt to 
imagine that he was merely a blustering, good-natured, vio- 
lent, headstrong man, whose manners must inevitably have de- 
generated into vulgarity, had he not been nobly born and ac- 
customed to the society of his peers. But much more serious 
conclusions might have been drawn [as in regard to Julius 
Caesar] by those who had penetration enough to see under the 
dark cloak of dissoluteness in which he wrapped himself and his 
designs." 

Bell, perhaps, sought to do Bothwell justice, but his de- 
sire to clear Lis heroine, Mary, would not permit him to 
do so. To tell the truth, Bothwell stands erect and promi- 
nent in his better qualities among his contemporaries. He 
resembles a grand, polished and ornamented shaft, which 
has retained its perpeiidicidar amid similar erections, its 
fellows of even date, which, shaken by a moral and politi- 
cal earthquake, if not thrown dowai, lean in one direc- 
tion or anotlier, or lie prostrate in the mire of their meaner 



121 

characteristics, or half hidden amid the rank and dank 
growth of their vices and their crimes. He was certainly 
more honest and more bold than his only real rival in 
poM^er and influence, the sly, self-seeking Murray, the pet 
of the clergy. Besides this Stuart, there is no other Scot- 
tish nobleman who deserves to be named in the same 
breath with Bothwell. 

Agnes Strickland, who is positively wicked at times in 
her vituperation and misrepresentation of Bothwell, is, 
nevertheless, compelled to make admissions in his favor, 
which neutralize volumes of abuse. She says (I., 139-140), 
" Covetousness was not his besetting sin," and that he 
"had refused to enrich himself with English bribes when 
deprived of all his living in Scotland." Of what other 
Scottish noble but he could the same be said? What does 
this mean ? He was unalterably true in good or evil estate 
to his sovereign, his government and his country. "How- 
ever deserving of censure, he had resisted every tempta- 
tion either to act as the secret service man of England or to 
trouble Mary's government by raising a revolt against her 
in [his own territories] Liddesdale, during his imprisonment 
at Berwick, which he might well have done ; his forbear- 
ance was deservedly appreciated by his sovereign." {I hid 

229.) "As LONG AS HE [BothwcU] REMAINED FAITHFUL TO 

HIS DUTY, SHE [Mary] was safe." (1566, I hid 351.) To 
impugn his complete intrepidity is to descend to the mean- 
est vilification, of the lowest. If he had not been consum- 
16 



122 

mately brave and expert in tlie management of arms, why 
was he always ready to venture his person in the fiekl ? 
and if he was simply a braggart, why did the men he chal- 
lenged always shirk or refuse, or slink out of the encoun- 
ter, as did the miserable Morton, at Carberry Hill ? The 
atrocious abuse of Bothwell does not hang together. It 
would contradict, or stultify itself if prejudice had not pet- 
rified itself into something insoluble to proof and reason. 
In 1565, amid her 18,000 men, '-'- of Loyal friends^ the 
Queen, could really count on none hut Bothwell, young 
Athol^ and perhaps Huntly^ the rest were as like to turn 
against her as to stand hy her.'''' (Froude, VIII., 213-14). 
This makes Mary's conduct at Carberry Hill utterly beyond 
the grasp of common sense. In allowing herself to be 
separated from Bothwell she abandoned everything trust- 
worthy. It was sheer insanity. 








Ernesto. — " 'T is true 

He thither came a private Gentleman, 
But young and brave, and of a Family 
Ancient and Noble as the Empire holds. 
The Honours he has gained are justly his ; 
He purchas'd them in War ; thrice has he led 
An Army 'gainst the Rebels, and as often 
Return'd with Victory ; the world has not 
A truer Soldier, or a better Subject." 

O T w A V ' s Tragedy , ^^The Orphan." 

— " Ha ! not love her ! 
Witness, ye heav'ns, if e'er was love like mine I 
Witness, ye hours, that saw my joys and pains ! 
My joys and pains that were for her alone. 
When I stood wond'ring at her awful beauties, 
Gaz'd on her eyes, or languish'd on her lips, 
Did she e'er joy, but I was all in raptures. 
Or ever grieve, but I was all in tears ?" 
1ARD Barford's Tragedy, ^''Virgin Queen." "iT^q. 

" Love, like a wren upon the eagle's wing. 
Shall perch superior on Ambition's plume, 
And mock the lordly pa.ssion in its flight." 

Ja.mes Darcv's Tragedy, ^''Love and Ainhiticn," 1732. 

HE difficulties of presenting a concise and, 
witlial, a clear statement of facts, were 
admitted by the celebrated Pascal, mas- 
ter of his langnasje, as he remarks at the 
end of Letter XVI. of his famons "Pro- 
vincials," "I have made this disserta- 
tion longer hecause I did not have time 
nor leisure to make it shorter.'''' In any event could he 

have made it more concise without obscuring its clearness. 

123 




124 

Terence, 1900 years before, said, "There maybe too 
much, even of a good thing." The Imman brain is very 
mnch like the human stomach. Good writing and good 
health depend very much on the digestive and assimilative 
powers of these organ s. To receive facts or food and so digest 
either that the one will turn what it has taken in into ex- 
cellent writing, or the other into perfectly healthy blood, 
is what few mortal brains or stomachs are capable of doing. 
These remarks are particularly pertinent to the considera- 
tion of the case of Bothwell and his times ; and the results 
of a careful analysis will prove most conclusively the 
truth of Shakespeare's idea, that "pleasant vices become 
scourges." James the Fifth, the "King of the Com- 
mons," was very common or indiscriminate in his loves. 
Among his illegitimate children, the best known is James, 
the Prior of St. x\ndrews, better known as the Earl of 
Moray, or Murray. As a physiognomist remarks, after 
studying his portrait, " His face gives him away," i. <?., 
reveals his character. 

It abounds with traits that deceive the multitude of ordi- 
nary observers, and disgusts the few wlio possess the gifts 
of insight and reflection. In spite of his seniority of birth, 
his bar-sinister precluded any right to the throne of his 
father. Notwithstanding, that was the objective of his 
life, and to its attainmient he was willing to sacrifice every- 
thing which honest men esteem. Gratitude and rectitude 
were qualities of which he knew not the signification. 



125 

Mary Stuart, his father's legal heiress and his sister, who 
should have been the object of his sleepless care and ten- 
derest solicitude, was the victim of his unceasing machina- 
tions and ci'iminal attempts. 

From the first, Both well's loyalty of service and affection 
aroused Murray's utterly selfish enmity. After getting 
rid of this fearless obstacle to his plans for a time — as 
he hoped for all time — the soul-less Murray transferred 
his hatred to Darnley, when the latter became betrothed 
to Mary. The papist creed of the royal pair made Murray 
and Knox coadjutors in every attempt to weaken or over- 
throw their authority. Knox, however worthy of respect 
as the p]-ime moral agent in securing the triumph of the 
Reformation in Scotland, was full of defects as an indi- 
vidual. To him "the end justified the means ;" and, while 
wide awake and eloquent as to the vices of Mary, he was 
often blind to the iniquities of his associates. He even 
winked at murder if it advanced his cause, as in the case of 
Rizzio. And yet, to his credit be it said, that Knox, in 
his own "work" [writings], Both well is "never men- 
tioned without a certain unmistakeable sympathy" (Schieni 
183). Murray was always a traitor at heart. After 
Mary's marriage with Darnley was an accomplished fact, 
Murray's treason m. purpose became so in deed. The only 
Scottish nobleman who was capable of checkmating Murray 
was Bothwell. He had been driven from the country at the 
instigation of Murray. Nothing but Bothwell' s loyalty, 



126 

ability and courage were equal to save the Queen from 
"the Bastard." Both well was summoned home, and with 
James Hepburn, at the head of her forces. Mar j was soon 
and easily able to chase out Murray and his brother rebels. 
The brief campaign by which she triumphed under Both- 
well' s leadership is known in Scottish history as the " Run- 
about-raid," because, as soon as Murray and his associ- 
ates settled down in any position which they deemed de- 
fensible, Bothwell ran them out of it, and finally out of 
the country. 

Mary's weakness in continually condoning treason, her 
folly in forgiving unrepentant enemies, was only equaled 
by her strength of will for the gratification of her passion- 
ate nature, as was manifested by her sudden self-abandon- 
ment to Darnley's superficial attractions and almost as 
sudden a revulsion of feeling in favor of Bothwell. 

With an obtuseness to her best interests, she pardoned 
where she should have executed, and the recipients of her 
highest bounty proceeded to inaugurate another League or 
Bond, ostensibly to get rid of Rizzio, who was the power 
behind the throne, but in reality to sweep away from the 
path of Murray and his faction, not only the favorite, and 
the husband, Darnley, but the Queen and the child in her 
bosom. Their removal would have left the throne vacant 
for Murray. Darnley, silly fool, dupe and tool, lent him- 
self to the designs of his deadly enemy. Rizzio was mur- 
dered 9th March, 1566 ; how is well known. But the 



127 

Queen, who, as Fronde (IX., 158) remarks, " had hap- 
pily a tough, healthy nature," survived a scene and shock 
which would have destroyed most women in her condition. 
Bothwell was to have been included in the massacre. He 
escaped to frustrate the success of the plan. Darnley, a 
traitor to his consort and his sovereign, in order to rehabil- 
itate himself with her, betrayed in turn his associates, of 
whom he had been the instrument, and of whom he was 
to be the victim. Mary's want of common sense through- 
out all this is as remarkable as her self-will. 

She had sacrificed friends and supporters to enrich Mur- 
ray and his supporters by confiscations and grants of 
crown lands. By the latter she had impoverished the 
Throne. By the law of Scotland these acts of folly could 
be remedied, provided they were revoked before she had 
attained her twenty-fifth year, a term near at hand in 1567. 
Darnley, aware of this, could find his revenge by influenc- 
ing the Queen to such a course against Murray, Morton, 
and their " Bonded" associates. It was well known that 
Bothwell was desperately in love with the Queen, and 
that her passion for him was equally violent. With a 
fiendish astuteness these nominal reformers in religion 
and politics entered into another bond, under the leader- 
ship of Murray, to get rid of Darnley, ostensibly for the 
benefit of Bothwell, and in reality solely for the advantage 
of themselves. 

Bothwell, carried away by his "overpowering love" for 



128 

the woman, altliongli a patriot and an honest man in 
every other respect, yiekled to the temptation, and in in- 
tent, but not in deed, became a partner in an iniquity by 
which Darnley perished, just eleven months after Darnley, 
in conjunction with his own after-murderers, had assassin- 
ated his best friend, Rizzio. Darnley did not lose his life 
through anything that Bothwell did, but by the hands of 
the strangler, the Scottish Thug, Sir Archibald Douglas, 
the cousin of Morton, the Altei' Ego in sin of the arch 
sinner Murray. The last felt that he was now on the 
threshold of success. By inflaming the public mind with 
the idea that Mary and her paramour were associates in 
the murder of her husband, he assured himself, if a mar- 
riage between the lovers could be accomplished, both 
might be crushed under the load of obloquy which would 
be aroused against them. Murray led off in the devilish 
design. He was the first to sign the Ainslie Supper Bond, 
which urged the Queen to marry Bothwell, and pledged 
the fortunes and fidelity of those who signed the Bond to 
defend and support the Queen and her third husband, 
James Hepburn. The ink was scarcely dry on the Bond 
before the human devils who subscribed it secretly entered 
into another to sacrifice Bothwell and the Queen, Fate 
was their friend, and Mary, with a folly as incomprehen- 
sible as inconsistent, threw away the game, allowed Both- 
well to be driven from her side, gave herself up to her 
enemies, and became first a prisoner, and then a fugitive. 



129 

Murray had triumphed. Mary's son, lieir to the throne, 
being an infant, Murray became Regent — was virtually 
King. For two short years he enjoyed the fruits of his 
life-long treachery. Then Ate stepped in, and through 
an agent as vile in his ingratitude to Murray as the latter 
had been to Mary, slew Murray ; and one by one, within 
a very few years, each one of his associates in crime per- 
ished by the bullet, by poison, by the axe, by the halter, 
or by some other sudden violence, artificial or natural. 
Then, out of the revolting putrescence of folly, passion, 
sin and crime, grew up, flowered, and fruited the success of 
Reform, and the Union of Three Crowns, the sovereignty 
of the British Islands, in the son of Mary. 

It seems to be the endeavor of every one who has writ- 
ten respecting the closer relations of Mary and Bothwell, 
to prove that their season of love — even if they admit their 
love was mutual — was of very brief duration ; with strange 
phases, at most comprised within two years. How long 
Mary took a warm interest in him is not so susceptible 
of proof ; but that Bothwell was in love with her as early 
as 1558, when he went to France in connection with her 
betrothal to the Dauphin, is admitted by more than one 
writer, either as a fact or as a surmise. Whether he saw 
her again until he encountered her at Joinville, in 1560, is 
not so certain. In that year he was sent over by her 
mother, the Queen -Dowager-Regent, on an important poli- 
tical mission, and remained four months in close commun- 

ir 



130 

ion with Mary, enjoying lier fullest confidence and consulted 
daily by her on many questions of vital consequence 
connected with her present and future. That she acted 
on his advice, and that his counsels were most wise, 
is undeniable. She learned to appreciate the literary 
and political capacity of which she had ample proof, 
and the trust that she acquired in his mental supe- 
riority was afterwards fortified by the experience she 
had reason to regard with gratitude in consequence of 
his invariable trustworthiness in arms and in council, his 
lo_yalty and his heroism. 

When Bothwell first enjoyed her society he was only 
eighteen years of age, although already showing the abil- 
ity of riper age, and in 1560 he was not over twenty-four, 
in the full possession of acknowledged virile beauty and 
manly courage. In truth, as soon as his father died, in 1556, 
he evinced ""The spirit of a youth that means to be of note." 

It is also certain that Bothwell returned to Scotland 
with her, but whether or not in the same vessel is no- 
where stated. He may have been in the ship with the 
Earl of Eglintoun, wliich -was stopped by the English ves- 
sels-of-war. If he was afterM'ards or at any time under a 
cloud for a shorter or longer period in his own country 
or in exile, the disfavor was not due to himself, but to the 
malice of the wicked Murray, who was implacable in regard 
to every one whom he deemed an obstacle to his greed 
and to his au)bition. Doubtless Bothwell' s habits may have 



131 

offended Mary from time to time ; not his vices, for to such 
she had been accustomed during her sojourn in France, but 
to the manner in which he gave way to his indulgence. 

Mary's relations with Bothwell must have been more 
or less intimate, because her favorite brother, Lord John 
Stuart, Prior of Coldingham, married Bothwell' s only 
sister, Jane Hepburn, 11th January, 1561-2, The nup- 
tials "were celebrated with great splendor at Crichton 
Castle. The fetes M^ere prolonged for three days, during 
which time Mary, matronized by his widowed mothei-, was 
Bothwell' s guest. The family connectioji established be- 
tween them by that marriage placed them on more famil- 
iar terms than might otherwise have been the case. What 
more natural, if Bothwell had been a man likely to please 
the Queen, then a widow, than that courtship should have 
been commenced between them on an occasion so auspi- 
cious for love-making as a festive Scottish wedding in a 
lonely castle at Yule-tide, when all was mirth and social 
joy, and regal cares forgotten for a season ? What objec- 
tion could have been urged against her contracting matri- 
mony with him at that time ? Bothwell was one of the 
great territorialists. Hereditary Lord Admiral, Lord Lieu- 
tenant of the Borders, a valiant soldier, and a Protestant. 
John Knox himself would have been willing to pi'onounce 
the bridal benediction of his feudal chief and the blooming 
Queen, in the hope that she would accompany her anti- 
Popish bridegroom to the preaching, learn from his stern 



132 

lessons the monstrousness of female domination, and sub- 
mit the sceptre and the sword of empire to a king-matri- 
monial of the Reformed faith."* 

The only issue of this marriage of John Stuart and. Jane 
HeplDurn was a son, Francis, who stood in an equal degree 
of relationsliip to Mary and to Bothwell, being the nephew 
of both, thus forming an additional strong connecting link 
between them. Lord John died in 1563, three years be- 
fore Mary and Bothwell were drawn most closely together, 
and Mary always cherished a great affection for the little 
boy to whom she had given the name of her first husband, 
Francis. This son was a real Hepburn, and turned out a 
wild slii3, and by his wayward boldness showed that his 
Uncle James lived over again in his sister's child, who was 
devoid of fear and full of wild enterprise, f 

Whatever may have been the feelings of Mary toward 
Bothwell, their course was turned aside by the appearance 



* Here let it be observed that it is very questionable if Mary would 
liave conceded full royal rights to any one, or, if she did so, submit to 
a co-equal exercise of sovereignty by a consort. Perhaps the key to 
much of her enigmatical conduct is the fact that, as soon as she felt her 
neck within a bow of tlie matrimonial yoke, her whole powers were ex- 
erted to relieve herself of the constriction and control. Moreover, this 
may explain her strange conduct at times, particularly aftec her mar- 
riage with Bothwell, arising from a mere struggle for mastery. As 
long as the relative positions of lover and sweetheart were maintained, 
it was a sliding scale, dependent solely on feeling. Marriage brought 
in a new quantity, and instead of two positive poles, mutually attract- 
ive, there were now a positive and a negative, repellant. 

f " John Stuart had already died at Inverness about the close of 1563. 
His widow entered, in the year 1566, into a second marriage with John 



133 

ofDarnley. This " beardless Adonis" captured lier fancy, 
and Bothwell for a short time was " out in the cokh" 



Sinclair, of Caithness, and after tlie death of tlie latter, in 1573, into a 
third, with Archlbaid Douglas, a relative of the Earl of Morton. Both- 
well's sister, during her tirst brief union to John Stuart, bore a son, 
Francis Stuart, to whom Mary became godmother, and of whom his 
maternal uncle [James, Earl of Bothwell] at a late period assumed the 
office of guardian. Named, as it would seem, after Mary's tirst hus- 
band, and by his father's early death specially commended to her care, 
Francis Stuart received even in his childhood, while the Queen was 
still at the head of the Government of Scotland, many proofs of her 
kindness, and was afterwards, in a tesiament made at Sheffield during 
her imprisonment, recommended, as her brother's son and her own 
godson, to the favorable regard of James VI., particularly in order that 
he might succeed to the Bothwell estates [those of her third husband]. 
James VI. consequently considered Francis Stuart as his cousin, and, 
although belonging to an illegitimate branch of the family, created him, 
in 1581, Earl of Bothwell and Lord High Admiral of Scotland, having 
at the same time made over to him all the rest of his uncle's long-for- 
feited possessions and offices. His character was, notwithstanding, 
too much like that of his uncle [James], and his political life was also 
as stormy as his. However ungrateful the new Earl of Bothwell after- 
wards showed himself towards James VI., he never in the least forgot 
the kindness with which Mary had followed him from his cradle. He 
told James VI to Ms face that if he submitted to Elizabeth'' s ■pi'osecution 
against his im'prisoned mother, he deserved to be hanged ; and ichen the 
tidings of her execution reached Scotland, he exclaimed that a coat of 
mail teas noio the only mourning he should wear, and put forth all his 
efforts to set on foot a hostile attack upon England. Seven years after- 
wards he was obliged to seek refuge in the wild highlands of the North, 
and subsequently to betake himself to the Orkneys, whence heat length 
continued his flight over the Shetland Isles to France. In 1600, the 
French Government compelled him to withdraw into Spain, whence he 
betook himself to Naples, and there, after he had gone over to Roman- 
ism, he ended his life in the year 1613, having, it is alleged, died of grief 
at the death, by accident, of the eldest son of James VI., Prince Henry 
Frederick." " Schiern's Bothwell," appendix (Note B. to P. 57), 407-'«. 



134 

Uandfasted to Darnley early in April, she was married 
to liiiu 29tli July of the same year, 1565. Before the pub- 
lic ceremony she gave tokens of regret at her precipitate 
choice of a yoke-fellow. 

The consideration now reaches a point which has given 
rise to a great deal of discussion. After the marriage with 
Darnley, Botliwell had been recalled, as the only man 
who could support the Queen against the bastard Murray. 
Why did Mary promote his marriage with Jane Gordon 
if she hated Darnley so desperately and loved Bothwell so 
dearly ? The English minister wrote home, 18th Febru- 
ary, 1566, " I know now for certain that this Queen re- 
j^enteth her marriage [with Darnley],'^ and she hateth him 
and all his kin." Burton (lY., 139) answers every objec- 
tion in two short sentences : 

''The interest taken by Queen Mary in this marriage has 
been pitted against the many presumptions that her heart then 
belonged to Bothwell. But experience in poor human nature 
teaches us that people, terrified by the pressure of temptation, 
do sometimes set up barriers against it, which they afterward 
make frantic efforts to o-et over." 



* Feuillet, in his '■^Histoire d\ine Parisienne^'' has some perti- 
nent observations on a similar antagonism between man and wife. 
"This man [Darnley], constituted solely of physical energy, 
had held his own against the anxieties by which he had been se- 
cretly tortured for weeks. His moral force had weakened un- 
der the astonishment, under the prolonged impression of that 
sombre hatred, that premeditated, astute, implacable vengeance 



135 

Whatever barrier Mary was thus erecting against her- 
self, and however impassable she considered it to be, Both- 
well had already planned the way to break it or sweep 
it away. His project was the reestablishnient of a Ro- 
man Catholic Court, invested with the power to pronounce 
divorces, especially where such were sought on a plea 



of which he felt that he was to be the victim. Habituated to 
treating women as children and playthings, lie was stupefied 
and even terrified at having encountered, all at once, in one of 
these frail and despised beings, a profundity of perception and 
a force of will against which all his personal forces, physical 
vigor, fortune, social position, conjugal autliority, were impo- 
tent and of no account whatever." 

" The conclusion of the matter is this : in the moral order of 
things monsters are not produced. God does not create them, 
and [Mary] the angel, by her husband's brutality, was trans- 
formed into a monster." As a bystander observed, " I see 
something in the pupil of her eye which would not greatly 
please me were I her husband." 

" Her (Mary's) education was essentially that of the French 
Court, and it affords a general solution of some of the moral 
difficulties connected with her career to collect from the sad 
history of the times the principles she must have tlien imbibed." 
" Appleton's Picturesque Cylopsedia of Biography." 

"The first Stuart on the English throne [.James VI. of Scot- 
land and I. of England] 2vas a true S07i of the (mean and cow- 
ardly Darnley and of the intellectual but) vicious beauty^ the 
mother, Mary, Queen of Scots. He (James) was a hard, cruel, 
weak, degraded creature." "^4 perished kerneV — Ewall's 
" Stories from State Papers," 11-71. 



136 

which the Papists never failed to adjudge sufficient to un- 
tie the marriage knot. Upon the advice of Both well, 
Mary reconstituted this Court, and, when the time came 
that a divorce was desirable, Mary did all in her power to 
bring the matter before this tribunal and hasten the pro- 
ceedings which set Bothwell free to marry her. All par- 
ties interested then concurred in using every means to 
remove all obstacles to the union of Mary and Bothwell, and 
the Protestant and Papist authorities ran a race, neck and 
neck, to legalize the divorce, without which Mary could not 
have married Bothwell, 15 May, 1567. It is utterly ridicu- 
lous to attempt to exjDlain away the patent fact that, without 
Mary was willing, and all parties agreeable, the marriage 
between the Queen and the Earl could not have been ac- 
complished. Mary's champions and defenders may shout 
themselves hoarse without weakening in the slightest de- 
gree Hume's consummate argument, that until her friends 
can show that Mary did not marry Bothwell, they had 
brought forward nothing to exonerate her. As to the 
question, how early Mary entered into those intimate re- 
lations with Bothwell — which not even her passionate affec- 
tion for him can excuse, in a strictly moral light — is not so 
clear, nor is this so important if the fact can be shown that 
they did exist for some time before tlie death of Darnley. 
That they did as early as the sunnner of 1556 is attested 
by her own hand, in one of the famous Sonnets addressed 
to Bothwell by her after he had such a narrow escape 



137 

from death on the 6th of Octoher, 1556. After this Mary 
seemed determined to aid him to the fullest extent of her 
ability in hastening the crisis. Then and thence resulted 
the death of Darnley, the divorce of Bothwell from his 
wife, Mary's marriage with him, and her complete surren- 
der of herself to him, as it were, in the very presence 
of her husband's corpse.* 

Mary's conduct at Borthwick Castle demonstrates that, 
so far as she was concerned, she was determined to cast in 
her lot with him ; but her conduct, as well as his own, at 
Carberry Hill, is one of those "weakenings" which puzzle 
the clearest head and most philosophical mind. That she 
should have consented to let Bothwell leave her without 
striking a blow, and have insisted up)on surrendering her- 
self helplessly to his and her mortal enemies, is one of those 
mysteries which neither experience nor philosophy can 
solve.* History, it is true, abounds Math mysteries, but pre- 



* '' Amid the confusion and general stupor, Jeanne, suddenly so- 
bered, kept her feet, cold, impassable, resting one hand on her chair ; 
her lovely face — once so pure and noble — seemingly concealed beneath 
the mask of Tisiphone, it manifested that mingling of horror and savage 
joy (satisfaction) which might have been discovered in the expression 
of Mary Stuart when she heard the explosion which avenged her upon 
the murderer of Rizzio." — Feuillet's " Histoire Wune Parisienney 

* What an awful fatality must that have been which led Mary 
Stuart * * * ; but the hand of Nemesis is upon Ihe false 
and frail accomplice of Bothwel]. She rejects all advice." * * * 
[Babington White's " Circe."] The author is speaking of the equal 
feasibility of Mary's escape to France after Langside as to England. 
His view is just, for the French galleys took her on board at Dumbar- 

18 



138 

sents none greater than the abandonment ot'Marj and the 
fruiting of his ambition and ("supposed ") crime, by Both- 
welL After striving for jears to obtain, his relinquish- 
ment of his success without a struggle is among the most 
incomprehensible faintings in manhood on record. Some 
explanation may be discovered in the supposition that he had 
formerly found his strength and influence renewed and 
increased in exile ; but even then the chance was so 
desperate and dubious, his desertion of his own cause, 
without a shot being fired or a blow struck, ranks with the 
inexplicable. It is one of the instances of the self-betrayal 
of a brave man which taxes the ingenuity of his biographer 
to excuse it ; that is, if the historical writer has had any 
knowledge of manhood in adversity. Mary was doubtless 
at fault more than Bothwell ; but since he had triumphed 
over her in his marriage and in accomplishing all his pre- 
vious purposes, his will should have risen, with opposition 
and the occasion, to a greater triumph. What conversation 
passed betw^een them in their parting exchange of thoughts, 
hopes and affection is a mystery as great as the result. 
Impartiality can only suggest that all powers, even the 
boldest, have their moments of weakness, and this M^as 
one of Bothwell' s. The decision of the Queen and of her 
consort on this occasion must be assigned to the same class 



ton when she was a child, and transported her to France, which was a 
onger and a more dangerous transit. The same remark, however, is 
equally applicable to her action at Carberry Hill. 



139 

of inex})licable events as Hooker's throwing away all his 
advantages on the 1st of May, 1863, at Chancellorsville, 
after he had ont-generaled Lee by such magnificent strate- 
gy as to evoke the highest praises of the best jndges of 
w^ar. It w^as a self-surrender similar to that which called 
forth the cruel criticism of Field Marshal the Dnke of Ber- 
wick upon the parallel action of Louis XIV., 7th June, 
1693. Berwick, courtier as he w^as, could not keep si- 
lent, and in bitterness of spirit he declared that the King's 
treason to himself was incomprehensible ; that there could 
have been no good reason for it ; that he could never learn 
anything to justify it ; and that the only conclusion he could 
come to was that it w^as God's wnll it should be so. The 
Elector of Bavaria expressed about the same idea after the 
battle of Ramillies, 23d May, 1706 ; and, since it is admit- 
ted that the physical courage of both Mary and Both well 
w^as indis]3utable, all that can be said to throw the slight- 
est glimmer of light upon such suicidal madness on their 
part is to refer the whole matter to the immediate intlu 
ence of Providence, and. remember the story of Jehosaphat 
and Ahab at Ramoth-Gilead, where God allowed "a lying 
spirit to go out" and "entice" Ahab, and "prevail" 
in leading him to his destruction. In the case of Mary 
and Bothwell, " the lying spirit " w^as Kirkaldy of Grange, 
and he prevailed.* '"''Fiat "voluntas tua'''' was one of the 



* It has even been surmised that Mary was struck with Kircaldy, 
and that he was fascinated by Mary (Burton, V., 129), on this occasion 



140 

mottoes of tlie Templars. "Thy will be done." "And 
it was so !" 

Among the many letters written and received on the 
subject of "Mary, Qneen of Scots, a Study," two contain 
observations which cannot be omitted. It is said of Mar- 
shal Clark, ]N"apoleon's Minister of War, that, after the 
campaign of " One hundred days," in the summer of 1815, 
and while he continued to enjoy the favor of the restored 
Louis XVIII. , "Those whose base extortions he had 
repressed in otlier times now joined their clamors against 
him, and the Royalists [Queen's party] cared not to say a 
word in his defence." Compare Dr. Petri ck's conclu- 
sions — exactly Both well's case. 

Again, " I believe I told you that I became curiously 
interested in the story of Mary and Bothwell. I know a 
living woman who is exactly such a creature as the Queen 
was, and I know a living man who is as exactly such a 
being as the Earl, only I believe the living .Earl — if he 
had been there three hundred and fifteen years ago — would 
have fought it out to the bitter end at Carberry Hill. In 



and he eventually became another of her victims. There is no doubt 
that some unrecognized influence began soon after to work upon him, 
and convei'ted him into one of her champions. Having hunted out 
Bothwell in 1567, he espoused her cause in 1569, took up arms in her be- 
half and perished like Bothwell through Murray's " foul accomplice,' 
Morton, and the latter's English allies. Kirkaldy betrayed Mary at 
Carberry Hill in 1567, and he was betrayed by his own troops in Edin- 
burgh Castle in 1573, six years afterward captured and ignominiously 
hung by Morton. 



141 

fact I know he would, because he belongs to a race who 
have held high commands in battle, and have either con- 
quered, fought it out to the last, or died sword in hand 
on the "field. I also think the living woman would have 
"caved," just as the Queen of Scots did; not from want 
of physical courage, but from what the Yankees term 
"inward cussedness," or that moral cowardice which 
arises from utter selfishness. 

" Causes of good or evil seem to accumulate, when a very 
slight thing is the beginning of a succession of blessings or curses. 
All things conspire, till the recipients of blessings are smothered, 
or the victims of curses are crushed. Till the cup is full, over- 
flowing, till the burden is unbearable, merciless, till good be- 
comes satiety, or evil cruelty — all the world seems to delight in 
contributing or robbing, deifying or anathematizing." 

" Never stoops the soaring vulture 
On his quarry in the desert, 
On the sick or wounded bison, 
But another vulture watchino; 
From his high aerial lookout, 
Sees the downward plunge and follows ; 
And a third pursues the second, 
Coming from the invisible ether, 
First a speck and then a vulture, 
Till the air is dark with pinions. 
So disasters come not singly ; 
But as if they watched and waited, 
Scanning one another's motions. 
When the first descends, the others 
Follow, follow, gathering flock-wise 
Round their victim, sick and wounded 
First a shadow, then a sorrow. 
Till the air is dark with anguish." 

Russell's ''Library Notes'' ''Types." 




^^ But though its greatness [like Bothwell's] lias liepartcd, its beauty remains. Un- 
like its once proud masters, Decay, though it has destroyed, has not corrupted it ; nay, has 
entranced its majesty, if not its beauty. The few grey hairs that palsy stirs upon the head 
of Eld, and which in man we pitifully call his " glory;" the trembling limbs that hardly serve 
to bear him to the wished for grave have here no parallel. The lichen and grey moss ef- 
face the ravages that Time has wrought upon the crumbling pile, the ivy binds its broken 
ruins together, and hides its scars, or crowns them with eternal green, and in every cleft 
and crevice through the summer long, the wild rose and the wall flower si<.n}ig their incense 
ovee tliis shrine of Time, and fill tite air ivitJt sweetness.^^ 

James Payne, ^^Kit : a Memory ^ 

■ — " All men must die : 
Bodies .\re only shadows." 

'" Mandingo Songf ^^SaTage Africa.'^ 

"Go to the battle. It is not lead [the bullet] that kills. It is Fate which strikes us 
and which makes us die." ^^U'ollof liar Song" William's '''A^egro Race in America.''' 

" It is not in my power [to turn back], an irresistible impulse forces me onward to the 
overthrow of Rome." Alaric. 

"What course shall I steer?" asked the pilot: "Where God pleases to send me] 
Against that [nation] which God wills to punish." Genseric. 

" To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under'the heaven : A 
time to love, and a time to hate ; a time of war, and a time of peace." 

^^ Ecclesiastesf III., i and 8. 



'JS" the foregomg presentation and absolute 
refutation of the false charges preferred by 
so many writers against Bothwell, sufficient 
proofs have been adduced to demonstrate 
that Bothwell's iirst criminal intent was 
suggested by that prime agent of evil, the 
astute Lethington, or, as he is better known, 
Maitland, in obedience to the odious craft of Mm'ray and 




143 

the insidious destitution of principle of the latter' s " old 
accomplice," the fonl Morton. No felonious conception 
can be imputed to James Hepburn until he became re- 
conciled to Murray and to that illegitimate Stuart's Ad- 
latus and father of lies, Morton. To judge of either 
of these two it is only necessary to recall the proverbs, 
"A man is known by his friends and associates," or " Tell 
me a man's companions and I will tell you the man." 
Justly, indeed, the Hon. John St. John, in his Tragedy, 
"Mary, Queen of Scots," makes the Queen declare : 

" O, I was destined in my native land 
To heavier ills ; to Darnley's cruelty ; 
Mxjeray's ambition ; Morton's treachery ; 
My subjects mean desertion of their Queen ; 
Their base revolt, and baser calumnie." 

Banks, in Ms '' Albion'' s Queens" (see Note, p. 76, supra), endorses this: 

" Thou [Morton] 'st done 
No ill to me, but as thy nature : 
A wolf can do but as a wolf— thow hast it 
Tho' Heaven thy horrid crimes may ne'er forget ; 
But let my son revenge [he did] his father's murder. 
Which thou too surely did'st, and laid'st the stain on me." 

It would be an attempt false to the purpose of this 
Trilogy — Mary, James Hepburn, and Bothwell — to en- 
deavor to disprove or gloss over the fact that Bothwell' s 
illicit love for Mary, and her return of such a passion for 
him, constituted the corner-stone of his subsequent co- 
operation in the "taking oif " of Darnley. He realized 



yO 

x 



144 

the ideal of James Thomson, in his tragedy of "Aga- 
memnon," 1733 : 

" Love, to the futnre blind, each sober thought, 
Each consequence despismg, scorning all, 
But what its own enchanting dreams suggest." 

Mary's surroundings in her girlhood and youth were 
incompatible with any sound comprehension of virtue. 
Her principal attendant, even when she left Scotland in 
1548, was Lady Fleming, her aunt, an illegitimate daugh- 
ter of James V. Chalmers more than once styles the 
Bastard Murray "her minion^ What can he mean by 
this term ? Or, again, of Henry Brookes, in his better 
known tragedy of '•'• Gtistamis Vasa,^'' 1739: 

" Love is a passion whose elfects are various : 
It ever brings some charge upon the soul, 
Some virtue, or some vice, till then unknown. 
Degrades the hero, and makes cowards valiant. 

When it pours upon a youthful temper, 

Open and apt to take the torrent in, 

It owns no limits, no restraint it knows, 

But sweeps down all, tho' Heav'n and Hell oppose : 

Ev'n Virtue rears in vain her sacred mound, 

Raz'd in its rage, or in its swellings drown'd." 

Still it must be borne in mind that Bothwell was ena- 
mored of Mary from the first time that he saw her, and also 
that she simultaneously experienced a confiding and inti- 
mate appreciation of his worth. From that time forward 
she leaned upon hini^ and urns thrust more and more into 
his arms / and had it not been for the insidious Murray, 



145 

it is likely that James Hepburn, and xot Henry Stuart 
(Darnley), would have been her second — not her third — 
consort. As justly observed (page 54, sn^ra), BotliM'ell 
"was a nobleman, who had hitherto been guilty of no- 
thing dishonorable ;" that being a man — as Lamartine ad- 
mits — "gifted with superhuman daring," he was the only 
one who felt no fear in undertaking the doing of a deed 
which the other nobles suggested and devised, incited 
"thereto" by Murray, "looking through his fingers." 
That in this Bond he was the Douglas, who had the audacity 
to "Bell-the-Cat," "and, which none other dared to at- 
tempt — according to the morals of the times when it oc- 
curred — it [the removal of Darnley] is certainly not dis- 
honoring for Bothwell." Finally, startling as the state- 
ment may seem, "BothwelFs [actual] participation in the 
murder of Darnley has not been strictly proved." Chal- 
mers (1, 141) uses explicit language. "Murray and 
Maitland condemned him [Darnley] to the howstr in (/,'*'' 
and Archibald Douglas, Morton's cousin, played the part 
of a Turkish mute, and applied what answered to a bow- 
string in its eifects. 

Another of the false charges against Bothwell is that 
he was guilty of ingratitude to Mary, by dragging her 
down to ruin througli his own selfishness, after she had 
loaded him with benefits and rewards. This is utterly ri- 
diculous. 

He had served her mother, the Queen-Dowager-Regent, 
19 



146 

Mdtli unexampled fidelity against tlie "Lords of the Con- 
gregation," the reliellioiis nobility; and, after Ler death, 
Mary, herself, M'ith equal loyalty. He had sliown himself 
from the beginuing the hitter's wisest counsellor ; pre- 
served her from Murray, Morton and their party ; led 
her armies ; pacified the Borders ; restored order through- 
out the realm ; and it was uot until he had rescued her 
from the assassins of Rizzio, in the spring of 1566, that 
he received his first reward (page 48-9, supi'a). Both- 
well owed nothing to Mary up to this time. His digni- 
ties, his position, his possessions, his iufluence, were all 
inherited and inherent. He was born, 1536 or 1537, Lord 
High Admiral of Scotland, and as such his cradle was 
his first cabin. While a boy he had fought to supj^ress, 
not to abet, piracy. In his nineteenth or twentieth year 
he already took an active part in public aftairs, and was a 
member of Parliament. When only twenty-one he repre- 
sented his country at the solenni betrothal of Mary to 
Francis, when and where he first saw his subsequent 
sM^eetheart and wife. The same year he was in the field 
as a military commander, and in 155S, at most aged tw^en- 
ty-two, he was appointed Lieutenant General of the Scot- 
tish Southerly Frontier (Marches or Borders) and Constable 
of the Headquarters of the turbulent territory, Hermitage 
Castle. In regard to this appointment, Mary thus ex- 
pressed herself at a later date : " Notwithstanding he wes 
yan of verie younge aige, yit wes he chosin out as maist 



147 

fit of the haill iiol)ilitie to be oiire Lieiitenent-Generall 
upoun the bordouris, having the haill charge alsweill 
to defend as to assayle." (Labanolf, '•'•Lettres^ Instruc- 
tions et Memoir es de Marie Stuart^'''' Vol. II., p. 34.) 

As Lieutenant, or Warden, Bothwell invaded England, 
made a destructive raid, and defeated one of the famous 
perilous-to-encounter Percys, in a noted and notable 
cavalry engagement. Of this invasion he himself remarks : 
"I inflicted irreparable damage on the frontiers, and 
especially upon the [turbulent and inimical] population." 
In 1559, the "hitherto successful Bothwell" was sent, 
with a combined force of French and Scotch soldiers, to 
preserve the "famous fortress" or Castle of Stirling; in 
1560 he was sent over to the French Court, over which 
presided Mary and Francis, to seek military co-operation : 
likewise into Denmark and Germany for the same pur- 
pose. In the spring of 1561 he rejoined Mary, now a 
widow, and remained at her Court in France until he left 
that country, and with her, on the same fleet if not in the 
same ship, returned to Scotland, and became a member of 
the Royal Privy Council. It may be said that this Coun- 
cil was due to his advice and selection of its members. 

In 1560 he was made '''' Gentilho'inme de la Chanibre " 
(Chamberlain) to the King of France, with a handsome 
donation, and, in 1564, when the false Murray drove him 
forth into exile, the new King of France, Charles IX., 
made him, on Mary's recommendation, Captain of his 



148 

Scottisli Bodj-Gnai'd. In 1563-4, Elizabeth, contrary to 
right and honor, threw him, when thrown on her coasts by 
a storm, into captivit}^, and hekl him in duress as a dan- 
gerous enemy to English intrigue until Mary herself ef 
fected or compelled his release. Bothwell was the only 
man in Scotland that Murray feared. It was at this time, 
Randolf indicates "the first traces" "of the Queen's par- 
tiality for Bothwell." (Burton, IV., 110.) In 1565, all his 
former dignities, otfices and influence were completely re- 
stored. In 1566 he was the Queen's Lieutenant General, 
or military Alter Ego, and commanded the Boyal army 
which dispersed the insurgent forces and drove forth Eliza- 
beth's fawning, thoronghly disciplined spaniel, Murray, and 
the other rebel lords, into the arms of their abettor, the 
false MachiaA^ellian English Queen. The blows which 
slew Bizzio were aimed as well at Mary, at Bothwell and 
the rest of those faithful to her. When Bothwell brought 
her back within nine days in triumph, she made him Pro- 
vost of Edinburgh Castle and Custodian or Constable of 
Dunbar. These were the first acknowledgments of his 
invaluable services, accompanied Avitli emoluments, that 
Bothwell had as yet received at the hands of Mary. They 
did not in reality elevate him a single step, and it was not 
until he was about to marry her that the Queen made him 
Duke of the Orkneys — an empty title, as it turned out — a 
delusion and a snare. In the previous works, " Maj-y, 
Queen of Scots," a "Study," and "James Hepburn, a 



149 

Vindication," it has been shown that Mary's partiality 
for Bothwell dates back much farther — perhaps to the earli- 
est months of her first widowhood— than writers are willino- 
to allow. That they did not develop into the absorbing 
passion that afterwards possessed her is nndoubtedly at- 
tributable to the malign and adverse influence of her ille- 
gitimate half-brother, "the Bastard" Murray. He was 
jealous of Bothwell as a soldier, as a statesman, and as a 
suitor, and he poisoned the Queen's mind against the only 
"real man" who approached her. Murray persecuted 
Bothwell to the extent of the power derived from his rela- 
tionship, both through blood and "Bonds," or jDolitical par- 
tisanship, from the time of Mary's return home down to 
the minute that the bullet of Bothwellhaugh avenged 
James, Earl of Bothwell. It is likely that Bothwell's 
mode of life had something to do with diverting Mary's 
feelings from him to Darnley ; but, like the pendulum driven 
to the left by the application of concealed machinery is 
brought back as soon as it has reached the limits of its 
sweep, and swings as far to the right, so Mary's sudden "ac- 
cess," wdiich threw her into the arms of Darnley, as soon 
as she discovered her mistake, brought her back with 
equal velocity into the embrace of Bothwell. How soon ? 
That it is iinpossible to prove. There is no direct testi- 
mony. Everything is circumstantial. Nevertheless the 
chain of evidence is very strong that, before Mary was 
publicly married to Darnley, she was already, from pas- 



150 

sioii as well as politics, attnicted more and more to Both- 
well. Solomon, whose " Song of Songs " "breathes such 
impassioned love," truly declares: "Love is strong as 
death ; jealousy is cruel as the grave." Many waters 
cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it ; if a 
man would give his whole substance for love, it would 
utterly he contemned." Bothwell won; Mary gave ! 

Yes, the more carefully that the critic — if he be un- 
biassed — prosecutes his scrutiny, the more he will be 
convinced of this. It is easy to deny ; it is difRcult to 
disprove. It is more facile to assert, and it is not as hard 
to demonstrate, that she was from time to time deeply, 
nay, desperately, in love with Bothwell. 

" Who journeys far in knowledge grows. 

If wise, to wisdom more attains ; 
The more the outer world he knows 

The more the inner vision gains — 
The knowledge of the world within ; 

He clearer sees with deeper ken 
That human souls are all akin, 

Though diverse are the lives of men." 

The proverb reads, "The com-se of true love never did 
run smooth." It held good in this case. As St. Augus- 
tine says in his " Confessions," " I loved not yet, yet I 
loved to love. * * '• I sought what I might 
love, in love with loving;" or, as Dante puts it in his 
' ' Divine Comedy : ' ' 



151 

" Love, that exempts no one beloved from loving, 
Seized me [Mary] with pleasure of this man [Bothw.ell] so strongly," 
That, as thoii seest, it doth not yet desert me ; 
[Even in, and after, her captivity at Lochleven,] 
Love has conducted us unto one death ; 

Caina [lowest Hell] waiteth him [Murray] who quenched our life ! 
[Whither Bothwellhaugh's bullets sent the treacherous Bastard.] 

Campbell goes so far as to state that Mary was 
"blinded by resentment " against Elizabeth's opposition 
to her marriage with Darnley, "as well as by love" for 
him, and, from these mingled motives, was impelled by in- 
dignation as well as by passion into consummating the 
union, which soon cost him his life and later hers. 

Dargaud — sneer at his correctness who may — develops 
the rapid action of the tragic drama with trustworthy dis- 
tinctness. The relations of Mary and of Bothwell had 
arrived at such a fever heat about the time that the Earl 
was wounded by John Elliot, of the Park, that a cataclysm 
was inevitable. It was simply cause and eftect.* 



* " To the man on whose career and character the correspondence of 
the day affords us these casual lights let us now return, at that critical 
point where all eyes were bent on him, and on the Queen along with 
him, as in some sJiape to he sharers in a comvion destiny. It was be- 
coming evident that there was something in her sentiments towards 
him of a warmer nature than those who closely observed it could ra- 
tionally attribute either to a just sense of his public merits or to simple 
gratitude for his services to herself. That she should fix her love on 
him has always been deemed something approaching the unnatural : 
but, when the circumstances are considered, the conclusion ceases to be- 
come so absolutely startling. Mary was evidently one of those to whom 
at times — and to her the times were apt to come in quick succession — a 



152 

Looking up into aclearl)lne sky, considering the condi- 
tion of the atmosphere, and observing otlier circnmstances 
inappreciable to those withont experience in such matters, 
enables the caretiil observer to prononnce this serenity " a 
weather-breeder." The night closes in without particu- 
lar change to attract the attention of admiring ignorance. 
Still there are indications perceptible to the seer, and the 
morning breaks in gloom and temj^est. Knox, in a meas- 
ure, was right, that "literary prostitute" Buchanan also, 
Murray, the whole tribe in some degree ; but, like birds 
of prey, they saw notliing in this storm but the promise 
of gratification for their coarse bat natural appetites. 
Mary returned from her trying gallop to the Hermitage 
to visit her wounded lover, and, in sjiite of the inevitable 
fatigue, instead of seeking repose, spent a large portion 
of the night in writing to him. This develoi3ed the fierce 
fever which nearly burned out her life. She rose from that 



great affair of the heart is a necessity of life ; the necessity now in- 
creased in intensity by her utter disappointment in lier last attach- 
ment, and the loathing she entertained towards its object. Who, then, 
were near her to be the first refuge for her fugitive affections ? None 
but her own nobles, for she was not in a position to treat witli a for- 
eign prince ; and, in looking around among the most eminent of these, 
including Huntly, the brother of a former suitor, Argyle, Athole and 
Arran, there were none who, on the ground of rank and position, had 
claims mucli higher than BothicelVs, unless it might be Arran, by rea- 
son of his royal blood, and he was already a rejected suitor." (Burton, 
IV., 172.) Burton (IV., 95) speaks of her 2'>olicy in 1563, "when she 
was not under the influence of the violent attachments to which she 
afterwards yielded." 



153 

sick-bed another woman. Botliwell left his conch — to 
which the w^onncl received in her service had consigned 
him — and, only half recovered, hastened to her side ; Darn- 
ley also came. How was each one received? There is no 
doubt as to the difference. From this time forward Both- 
well rose privately and pnblicly in her esteem ; and, as 
Botliwell rose, Darnley fell, stumbled, j)lunged into the 
pit his follies, cowardice and debaucheries had dug for him, 
and lost his life. Was BothM'ell to blame that he deliv- 
ered the nation and its queen from such a compound of 
ambition and imbecility ! Since the beginning of the M^orld 
history teems with similar instances. Is left-handed Ehud 
blamed for slaying the tyrant Eglon ? Was not Jehu ex- 
alted, for the destruction of Ahaziah and Jezebel ? Are not 
Harmodius and Aristogiton honored for killing one of 
the Pisistratidse, oj^pressors of Athens ? Is not Brutus 
hailed as "the Last of the Romans," although he struck 
down his benefactor, Julius Csesar ! The Roman Catholics 
glorified with blasphemous honors the monk Clement, who 
emulated Ehud in killing Henry III. ; and is not Charlotte 
Corday almost sanctified by the best of people for stab- 
bing Marat ? Did. Botliwell intend to do more than either 
one of these, and w^as he not incited to do whatever he 
did by the preachings of Knox, the founder of the Scot- 
tish Church, and his coadjutors in the work of reforma- 
tion ? It is now positively known that Darnley did not 
lose his life either through the means employed by Both- 
20 



154 

well or at Lis hands. Darnley was slain by Arcliibald 
Douglas, cousin to Darnley, and relative and confidant of 
Murray and Moi-ton. Out upon sucli injustice ! It was 
to the interest of Murray's party to throw tlie guilt upon 
Bothwell, to ruin him, to persecute him to his life's end, 
to defame his memory, and to hand him down as the vilest 
criminal in Scotland, whereas he v.ias the only rkai. man of 
his ge7ieratio)i. As was said of the great Hohenstaufen 
emperor, '' Frederick II., with many of the noblest Cjuali- 
ties which could captivate the admij-ation of his own age, 
ill some respects might appear misplaced, and by many 
centuries prematurely born." Or, again, "In all ages 
there have been false [undeserved] reputations, founded 
on some individual judgment, whose authority has pre- 
vailed without examination, until, at last, criticism dis- 
cusses, the truth penetrates, and the phantom of prejudice 
vanishes. Such has been the reputation of" James Hep- 
burn. ' ' But the eye of Providence, which sees everything 
from eternity, perceives all this ; and that same Provi- 
dence disposes everything she has predestinated, in the or- 
der it deserves. As Homer says of the sun, it sees every- 
thing and hears everything. ' ' 

Bothwell, as a politician, was too honest for his time, 
or any time. He served through loyalty, true to his 
motto, "Kiip Trest" ("Be Faithful"), through sheer loy- 
alty to the Queen-Dowager and purest loyalty, fondest 
love (in many ways the terms are synonymous) to Mary, 



155 

Queen and woman. The scales of his magnanimity, ad- 
justed to weigh most precious objects, were incompetent 
to w^eigh the sordid, soul-less creatures with whom lie had 
to \vork, wdiose religion, patriotism and honor were 
founded on greed. With all his experience and educa- 
tion he did not appreciate that all revolutions were 
founded on personal interests, pecimia^ money and lands. 
If he had lived to this day he would have seen this truth 
confirmed. The Netherlanders, who stood fiery death and 
fiercer torture because it reached individuals, or only a por- 
tion of the j)opulation, not the wdiole, would not stand the 
"tenth penny," Alva's alcohala, because it afi'ected every 
one — every one felt and no one could avoid the extortion. 
The people of the Thirteen Colonies rebelled because the 
Mother Country justly sought to impose upon them a 
small portion of the burden of the expense of their defence 
against the French and savages. The South took up 
arms to carry their "peculiar institution," Slavery, on to 
Free Soil, and protect their property and trafiic in human 
chattels. 

So it has been and so it ever wall be. The Scotch no- 
bility w^ anted to retain wdiat they had gripped, and acquire 
more of the confiscated Church lands, and Bothwell sought 
to curb their growing power, to maintain the royal author- 
ity, and to administer justice without regard to creed or 
greed. It is susceptible of proof that he did this almost 
wdthout reward, and even at last with no adequate com- 



156 

pensation from tins source. All tliat lie held lie inherited 
from his great-grandfather, tlie first Earl Patrick, except his 
government of Edinburgh Castle and the Castlery of Dun- 
bar, which were the recompense of his mighty fidelity; he 

" Who never sold the truth to serve the hour, 
Nor palter'd with Eternal God for power ;'' — 

he, who never placed his neck in the yoke of a Knox — 
who, lording so long over the consciences of Scotland, 
thought enough of his own ajjpetites and interests to share 
at sixt}^ the matrimonial yoke with a rich and noble maiden 
of fifteen ; — he, who planted himself as a barrier to the ag- 
gressions of the "Lords of the Congregation;" who had 
he but filled the maws of this hungry pack with plunder, 
or reduced them to beggary, and given their possessions to a 
new tribe of "wild (Nepaul) dogs'" and jackals, and had he 
been contented with the woman, Mary, he might have con- 
tinued to live on and to love. He fell and lost all because 
he M^as a patriot without groveling objects. Had he left 
the administration and its advantages to the vile aristo- 
cracy whose mouths watered for the latter alone, as hun- 
gry wolves contemplate a flock of fat sheep, he would not 
have been branded as a "pirate,'' and died in exile and 
captivity. He sought at once to love the Queen as a "real 
man," and to govern the country as a real ruler. In Scot- 
land two such roles^ in his day, were incompatible. Love 
brims earth's cup. Let mortals be content with that. If 
the goblet of life be filled with that draught, pure and com- 



157 

plete, none other will be conceded. The law of compensa- 
tion will yield no more because, with means to live, For- 
tune can bestow no more. Wreathe the cup with the most 
exquisite wild flowers grown amid the thorns along the 
path of life, and Fate may smile and bless the gift. En- 
crust the chalice with gems, and at once it becomes the 
coveted prize of the envious, the sensual and the violent, 
or the prey of the stealthy or the rapacious robber, 

■ " Pains of love be sweeter far 
Than all other pleasures are." 





' This is Love's house, and this is Love's hour of bliss ; 

Through the dark grove her windows shine like stars ; 
List to those flute-players, mark well the bars 

Of that sweet prelude, each note like a kiss 
That longer grows and tenderer, till you miss 

The music in the passion. Nothing jars 

On soul or sense : no fateful boding mars 
Joy's perfectness ; what end shall be of this ? 

Love hath her day, but Love's day vanisheth ; 

Vacant her chambers now, below, above ; 
Her flutes no longer breathe melodious breath ; 

Dark are her windows now as is the grove ; 
And echoes of the falling feet of Death 

Reverberate through the emptj' house of Love." 
^^Lovrs Day." — T/ie Academy. 



T is impossible, without entering into the 
most minnte details and at length, to fur- 
nish to readers any adequate idea of the 
utter villainy of the principal Scotch no- 
bility in the time of Mary. They had 
scarcely signed the Bond at the celebrated 
Ainslie [Annesley] Supper, 19th April, 
1567,* urging the Queen to marry Bothwell, and sol- 




* But what was the jjurport of this celebrated Bond '? The writers — 
after rehearsing the facts which we have already detailed, that the 
Earl of Bothwell, having been openly calumniated as guilty of the death 

158 



159 

emnlj pledging "their lives, their fortunes and their 
sacred honors," their complete support to her and to him, 
if the marriage did follow, than — even before the nuptial 



of the late King, as well by placards over the city as by the letters of 
the Earl of Lennox, had been tried and found innocent by the noble- 
men, his peers, appointed to conduct the inquest — declare that the no- 
bleness of Ids lineage, the magnitiide of his services, and their oion friend- 
ship towards him in all times past, together toith that common bond of 
interest tcihich unites all noblemen together, as equally subject to the cal- 
umnies of their enemies, and the vain bruits of the common people, in- 
duce them to come forward and avouch his perfect innocence, and to 
promise upon their faith and honor, andtruthin their bodies as they are 
noblemen, and as they shall answer to God, to defend him in all time to 
come against all, whosoever they may be, who shall utter slander against 
his name ; and, moreover, considering that the Queen was without a 
husband, and that none could be found so fitting for that dignity as him- 
self, they promise to sustain him in his endeavors to perfect such a 
marriage, and to render him all assistance against any who shall 
endeavor to oppose or to j^revent it. [If there were no evident 
tokens of Mary's fondness and partiality for Bothwell, why should 
he have been selected for so high a dignity and reward ?] And 
should they violate their solemn promise, thej^ call down upon 
their own heads the vengeance of posterity, and beseech that 
they may " never have Reputatioun or Credite in na Tyme 
heiraftir, but be accounted unworthie and faithles Traytors." The 
annals of history are filled with many sad and melancholy instances 
of human treacherj'' and human crime, and our own [English] na- 
tion has not been free from such blots upon its brilliant escutcheon ; 
but when we see the same men who have thus, under the most 
solemn obligations which can bind the mind of man, dedicate their 
lives, their fortunes and their honor to the support and defence of a 
single man, and the furtherance of his marriage with their Queen, de- 
claring a few sh,ort months afterwards that he was undoubtedly guilty 
of the perpetration of the crime, from the imputation of which they 
there declared him free, and averring that their sovereign, " by hir un- 



160 

Iviiot was tied — tliey were making aiTangements for an- 
other "Bond" to pull down tlie Earl and rnin the Queen. 
(See Letter of the British spy and tool, Kircaldy of Grange, 
to tlie English Earl of Bedford, dated the next day, 20th 
of April, 1567.) Burton (IV., 235) states that they were 
concerting their plans for this infernal treachery before the 
marriage, 15th May, 1567. That is to say they had 
handicapped the Aiiislie-Tavern-Bond by another, cal- 
culated to annul their pledges, which had been freely and 
unreservedly given a few weeks previously. Among the 
excuses they alleged to whitewash themselves for rising 
against Bothwell and the Queen, was the charge that the 
former intended to get possession of the young prince (after- 
wards James YI. ) and make way with him, to assure to him- 
self and to his issue the Crown and the Succession in Scot- 
land. That such issue there would be, Mary herself deemed 
probable. (Froude, IX., 65.) This lame attempt at exon- 



gocllie and dishonorable proceeding iii a pr i veil mariage with him sodden- 
lie and unprovisitlie," was proved beyond a doubt to have participated 
in that crime, the whole dark array of human guilt seems brightened 
by the contrast, and the vile act of pertidy stands forth the blackest in 
the annals of our race. Bright, indeed, was the spirit of prophecy which 
illuminated their minds when they penned those last words of their sa- 
cred Bond, when they declared that, if they violated that pledge, they 
should " nevir have Reputatioun or Crediie in na Tyme heiraftir, but 
he &ccowQie(\. umcortJde and faitJdes Trayfors." Their own lips have 
pronounced the verdict on their fame, and posterity shall con- 
tirm the awfnl sentence for the profit and edification of an admiring 
world." ("Memoirs of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland," by L. Stan- 
hope F. Buckingham. London, 1844, pp. 177-80. 



161 

eration falls to the ground, since it is known that their 
threefold treason was determined at least a week before 
either the Queen or Both well had manifested the faintest 
design — or, according to any evidence, entertained the 
slightest idea — of asking or seeking the guardianship of 
the Royal child. They had no reason for their suspicions 
except the suggestion of their own guilty minds, sufficient- 
ly capable of engendering such a criminal plot. Whatever 
course he followed, Bothwell's objective had always been, 
and was, a grand one. Primarily it was the good of his 
country, and the hope of bringing order out of chaos. 
Secondly, it was the possession of Mary Stuart, the object 
of "the overpowering force of love [which] had already 
swept away his long tried fidelity." (Buckingham, I., 
182.) It is a pity Bothwell had not eaten freely of " Ant's 
Eggs," which, according to popular superstition, "are 
an Antidote to Love." Even in this, however, his design 
was invested with a certain nobility of purpose. Erom her 
hand he hoped to receive the sceptre, and from his mar- 
riage with her derive the legitimization of an authority 
which would enable him to bless Scotland with something 
like a stable and efficient government. That he loved 
Mary as no other man ever loved her, and that she loved 
him — as much as her Stuart-Guisan nature — spasmodical- 
ly and sporadically — would allow, and as she loved no 
other man, is susceptible of the clearest proof, except to 

those who resemble the Papists and Southern Rebels, and 
21 



162 

Hre positively iiiial)le to see the truth through the atmo- 
spliere of their interests and their ignorance, their preju- 
dices and their passions. 

Mary Stuart's life — to repeat — was one tissue of mis- 
takes. She started out with the grand error of making 
Elizabeth her enemy by a public claim to the Crown of 
England. She endeavored to excuse this on the ground 
that the act was not he]' own., but that of her father-in- 
law, Henry 11. , King of France. This would be a plaus- 
ible explanation if she had not adhered to the assumption 
throughout life, and when she was entirely independent 
of all control. This obstinac}^ brought her to the scaffold. 
Moreover, her indiscretions — beginning as soon as her first 
husband, Francis, died — were unintermittent. (Burton, 
TV. , 172-8. ) She was a perfect ' ' Medusa among Beauties. ' ' 
Everyone of her lovers in succession came to a terrible 
end ; with one exception, the noble d'Amville. He alone, 
in time, had the strength of soul to break the spell. From 
Chastelard to Babington, to love Mary Stuart, or to be fa- 
vored by her, was equivalent to a sentence of death. Just 
consider the list after her return to Scotland ; for uncer- 
tainty — like one of the dense fogs of the land of her nativ- 
ity — invests the period of her widowhood in France. She 
must have in reality possessed the fabulous "Capon's 
stone," capable of ensuring love. Even the vile Murray 
expiated his brief intervals of favor by assassination. Chas- 
telard, by the hands of the executioner, heads the death- 



163 

roll ; Sir John Gordon, avowedly the handsomest man in 
Scotland, was decapitated in her presence ; Rizzio was 
basely and barbaiously mnrdered at her knees, her second 
husband abetting and assisting ; Darnley was strangled, 
NOT hilled hy mi explosion^ and not hy Bothwell ; Both- 
well, after fearful vicissitudes, perished in confinement ; the 
Earl of Arundel died in the Tower and the Duke of Nor- 
folk on the block there ; the Earl of Northumberland lost 
his head by the axe at York ; and the Earl of "Westmore- 
land died in poverty and exile. As for minor victims to 
her fascination, the rack, the noose, the axe and the gibbet 
were their inevitable fate. 

Mary Stuart's mother, Mary of Guise, Queen -Do wager- 
Regent, trusted implicitly in Bothwell. Mary herself ac- 
corded to him her fullest confidence in emergencies, from 
the first time they met at Joinville. Had she remained 
faithful to these first impressions, all would have gone 
well. Knox would have sanctioned and blessed the union 
of the Queen and his hereditary chief, to whom he ever, 
with more or less fondness, inclined, and the Keformers, 
as a body, in spite of the rascality of their lords, would 
have followed the anointed of the great Scottish Reformer 
and the most consistent Protestant of the whole nobility. 
But, unfortunately, she allowed herself to be beguiled by the 
arch-hypocrite Murray, and he led her astray and plunged 
her deeper and deeper into the fatal slough of his arts, or 
lured her into the meshes of his boundless ambition. 



164 

Althous^li a bigoted Roman Catholic, among her first 
acts, after her return to Scotland, was to assist her in- 
triguing relative to ruin the House of Huntley, the i3rinci- 
pal prop of her creed. What for ? To build uj) the 
fortunes of her false brother, who was her most truculent 
enemy, and thus, by the spoliation of her staunchest 
friends, to found and fence the fortunes of her bitterest 
enemies. Unless she had so greatly enriched Murray, he 
could not have compassed her downfall. Had she mar- 
ried Bothwell when she returned to Scotland, all would 
have gone well. He was a Protestant who, while unshak- 
able in his convictions, was wholly destitute of bigotry. 
He would have rallied the Calvinistic pack to her support 
— the hungry and remorseless pack, which, allowed to fol- 
low Murray's lead, hunted Mary to her doom. She passed 
over devoted fidelity when it might have proved her sal- 
vation, and was caj)tured — "captured" is the only word 
applicable — by the "mere external graces and accomplish- 
ments" of a courtly but " silly young fool," and soul-less, 
" well-made, long lad " — an innnature man, just as fit to 
be a king-consort as the astute Murray was to be a subject. 
The " deejD-seeing ecclesiastic," Mary's uncle, the Cardi- 
nal de Lorraine, sent two confidential messengers to his 
niece, and implored her, through Roullart, to give up Darn- 
ley "if she valued her future happiness," styling him, 
with astonishing perspicacity, " im gentil hiitaudeau'*'' 
(an obsolete epithet of contempt equivalent to a "high- 



165 

born, quarrelsome coxcomb") " umiieet in any respect to 
be her consort." Unfortmiately things had gone too far. 
Darnley ah-eady possessed her person. Handfasted to him 
in the beginning of April, 1565, she learned too late the 
truth of her relative's judgment. She was already sur- 
feited with him when the mistress, in fact, — by a sort of 
brutal usage or custom in Scotland — became the fully legal- 
ized wife, on the 29th of July following. For this outrage 
on manners and morals, her church — the Eoman Catholic, 
a church which is never false to its Jesuit creed, expedien- 
cy, that the end justilies the means — and the Papal agent, 
Rizzio, are alone responsible. All this time her heart of 
hearts belonged to Bothwell. This cannot be proved by di- 
rect, however demonstrable by indirect, evidence. At the 
public marriage with Darnley (Froude, YIIL, 190) — 

"For some strange reason," the Queen appeared " at the altar 
in a mourning dress of black velvet, such as she wore the doleful 
day of the burial of her husband [Francis]. Whether it was 
an accident — whether the doom of the house of Stuart haunted 
her at this hour with its fatal foresliadowings — or whether sitn- 
ply for a great political purpose^ she was doing an act which 
IN ITSELF SHE LOATHED, it is impossible to tell ; but that black 
drapery struck the spectators with a cold, uneasy aioeP 

The public marriage witli Darnley evoked from its 
originator and manipulator, Rizzio, the secret agent of the 
Papacy, "the exultant exclamation, ''Te Demn laudainus* 
— it is done, and cannot be broken." Blind fool! He 
praised God for what ? For bringing about his own down- 



166 

fall and death ! He did not foresee that, within eight 
months, Darnley wonld compass his murder. Nor did he 
foresee that a week after Both well would be summoned 
home, destined to avenge him on Darnley, and overturn 
all for which the exultant Piedmontese had labored and 
was to suffer. 

In "Mary, Queen of Scots, a Study," and in "James 
Hepburn, Earl of Both well, a (the first) Vindication," 
sufficient has been said in detail of the removal of Darnley. 
All that seems needful in this immediate connection is to 
repeat that "Mary was thrust more and more into the 
arms of Both well " (page 49, supra) from the moment he 
returned home to her support. By handfasting she became 
the legalized or morganatic mistress of Darnley early in 
April, 1565 ; by choice she was the chere-aynie of Both- 
well (Dargaud), before Darnley was a year older, perhaps 
much sooner. 

That Sir Walter Scott, with all his chivalric admiration 
of Mary Stuart, did not believe in her innocence is admit- 
ted by the Queen's warmest advocates. That slie lured 
Darnley — once, and for a short period, the object of a fren- 
zied passion — to his doom is undoubted. The more the 
facts are studied, the more conclusive must be the judg- 
ment of the impartial against hei". Amid the direct and 
circumstantial evidence, her letters (known generally as 
the "Casket Letters") to Bothwell are tlie most impor- 
tant proof. 



167 

In spite of all the voliinies published and testimony that 
has accumulated, in almost every language of Europe, to 
prove that the "Casket Letters" and Sonnets and Docu- 
ments found in the Silver Box, belonging to Both well, and 
delivered over to his enemies by the double traitor, Bal- 
four — are forgeries, the writer reiterates, after more care- 
ful consideration, that tlieiT authenticity is undoiihted. 
After over two years' study of all tlie testimony, pro and 
con, his verdict — that of no incompetent critic — must be that 
they carry within themselves inherent proof that they are 
not inventions^ except in the primary sense of the word — 
i. (3., they M^ere accidentally discovered. To emphasize, the 
CasJcet Letters are not forgeries. Those documents are not 
anomalies. Many women in diiferent classes of life, in 
more or less polished language, have addressed letters to 
their lovers as full of passion as those of Mary, demon- 
strating as complete surrenders of heart and soul to the 
object of their love, to whom they had abandoned them- 
selves and devoted themselves whether for good or for evil. 
They are exactly such communications as would be sent 
to a Bothwell, now idolized by a Mary Stuart hating a 
Darnley, a detested and detestable husband, than whom a 
meaner creature never lived ; and, as she did write them, 
they clear up every difficulty which appears to invest the 
otherwise enigmatical tie that bound the Queen and the 
Earl to each other with mysterious intensity. They prove, 
moreover, that in whatever degree Bothwell was criminal 



16S 

in blasting away the obstacle, Darnley, between Mary and 
himself, she, in an equal if not a greater degree, was guilty 
as instigatoi', perhaps ; as accomplice, assuredly ; as spy 
and lure, certainly ; as a receiver of whatever was acquired 
by the crime, a partner from first to last, at every step, in 
every degree, in every phase, and in every particular ac- 
tion. Among other arguments urged that Mary did not 
compose or write these letters, &c., is their orthography, 
calligraphy, language, style, and sentiment. ]S^o one wrote 
more unevenly in every respect than she did at different 
times. In a little French work entitled, "The Art of 
Judging the Characters of Men and Their Handwriting," 
is shown a letter of Mary Stuart, "who at times wrote ele- 
gantly, though usually in uneven lines ; when in haste and 
distress of mind ; in several letters during her imjDrisonment 
v^A\\Qhl\-v?i\Q YQSiA much the contrary ;'''' i. e.^ not elegantly 
or as ordinarily. This is another strong proof of the authen- 
ticity of Mary's letters to Both well, which were indited both 
"m haste and distress of mind," or j^erturbation of mind 
(D'Israeli's "Curiosities of Literature, " lY., 47). As fur- 
ther proof against her see the curious inedited holograph 
letter recently discovered, among others of Mary, in the 
Charter Room of the Earl of Moray, Donibristle House, to 
the Commendator of St. Colmes Inch, in a mixed dialect of 
English, Scotch and French. Although a perfectly original 
document from the hand of the Queen, it is admitted by 
Agnes Strickland, her too ^partial biographer, to be " al- 



169 

most as unintelligible as if written in Welsh," It M'-as 
indited during Mary's captivity at Bolton Castle, in Eng- 
land, and is dated 23d July, 1568. Sncli spelling as this 
epistle exhibits is incomprehensible in a woman of the 
Queen's capabilities, education, and opportunities. The 
best proof against Mary is feminine nature in general, and 
her own in particular, and there is nothing in any of the 
papers, charged to be hers, in prose or poetry, that is not 
strictly consistent with both. 

It seems almost impossible for a student of this period 
to tear himself away from discussing the validity of the 
Casket Letters and Documents. To a person of experi- 
ence, a man of the world, they can-y within themselves 
every proof of their authenticity. This internal evidence, 
again, is corroborated by external circumstances. Whoever 
denies that Mary's infatuation or passion for Bothwell is not 
demonstrated by them, as well as by her open conduct, is 
either too prejudiced to judge fairly, or too ignorant of 
women and the world to be competent to judge at all. 
Here, apparently out of place in this connection, it seems 
pertinent to anticipate in regard to the charge of Both- 
well' s unkindness to Mary, after their public marriage, a 
similar rule of investigation must be applied. If Bothwell 
and Mary's connection dated back for the long period 
alleged, and as good as proven — although a Scotch jury 
might let them oif with the dubious verdict of "guilty, 
but not proven" — a comparison of testimonies will demon- 



170 

strate that tlieir honsyinoon was only nominal^ and that, 
since the edge of possession had long since been turned, it 
was no honeymoon — in the real sense of the word — at all. 
Bothwell knew Mary and her failings or proclivities, and 
since it is admitted that strong love and fierce jealousy are 
inseparable, this conjunction of excitations, together with 
the difficulties of his situation, may have made the 
Earl-Consort less gentle than a "spoiled beauty" was 
willing to submit to without grievous complaint. The 
conditions of conrting and of marriage, differ vastly in 
the great majority of cases. Marriage, according to the 
proverb, "is the Grave of Love." Moreover, Mar}' was 
easily discomposed. When crossed, and when in that 
condition of mind, and in her condition of body — all proved 
by her faintings and other unmistakable signs — she doubtless 
used strong phrases not meant in earnest, however forcibly 
expressed. People undertake to apply to her case rules ot 
judgment which are altogether inapplicable in the nature 
of things and to women, from queen to quean : since all 
women in love are alike, whether crowned or in rags. 
Moral laws and conventional restraints are all very well 
in the abstract, but whoever has been behind the scenes 
and seen the litter-strewn corners of life is well aware 
that a writer must have been very much of a Bohemian, 
who undertakes to write on subjects that lie entirely be- 
yond the area of the dignity of parlor manners and the 
]^roprieties of full-dress-parade or fashionable receptions. 



171 

Burton {TV., 228-' 9) assures us that : 

"• The beginning of their wedded life [puhlicly accepted as 
such] resembled that of any innocent young couple, affluent 
in the sources of magnificence and luxury.* They were a good 



* " Some business had to be clone, however, and, among other thnigs, 
came up the proper diplomatic communication of the events to foreign 
Courts. A long document of extreme interest contains her instructions 
to AVilliam Chisholm, Bishop of Dunblane, sent as a special envoy to 
France to convey the intelligence and make suitable explanations. 
This document is curiously wavering and inconsistent. It begins with 
a eulogistic biography of her husband — what the French would call an 
eloge. His great services and merits are set forth at length ; and since 
it has to be admitted that he was sometimes under the cloud of the royal 
displeasure, this is attributed to the envyings that ever dog high merit, 
and are successful for a time in obscuring it. In this portion of the 
document it is made clear that Bothwell amply deserved his prefer- 
ment. 

"Having shown what she had done was exactly what in justice and 
duty she should have done, she next tells how the surrounding condi- 
tions coerced her, so that, as a political necessity, she could not do 
otherwise. She found that his eminent services to the state and to her 
own person had not been achieved without exciting ambitious thoughts. 
She saw the somewhat audacious tenor of these, and tried to adminis- 
ter a judicious check to them. She failed. There was another element 
besides ambition which made him rash and headstrong in his acts — a 
devouring love for her. These combined motives conduced to rash 
acts, which brought her into his power. Then, when she considered 
her position, it was not merely that she was at the mercy of a man ex- 
ulting in the consciousness of unparalled hei'oism and statesmanship, 
and frantically in love with herself, but her whole nature was with him. 
She referred to the Bond signed at the notable [Ainslie] supper as a 
great demonstration of the chiefs of the state, such as a sovereign cannot 
without danger resist. The current in Bothwell's favor was so .strong 
that not one man in Scotland appeared to stand up for her. Then she 
bethought herself if she was right in her obstinate resistance. She be- 



172 

deal seen in public, and frequently rode together in much bra- 
very. Stories were told how when he, still preserving the 
etiquette of sovereign and subject, would attend her cap in 
hand, she would playfully snatch it and place it on his head. 
It may, indeed, be counted one of the most remarkable pheno- 
mena of the whole situation that one of the subtlest and acutest 
women ever born should, in her fool's paradise, have been 
totally unconscious of the volcano she was ti'eading on." 

Any man of the world who has seen much of life, and been 
behind the scenes, must know that just such letters as are at- 
tributed to Mary Stuart have been written under similar cir- 



gan to yield to the wishes of her people, and at the same time her heart 
relented to the merits and the deep affection of her lover. Further, 
wearied out by the turbulence of the country she was to rule over, she 
feels how great a relief it will be to herself, how great a gain to law and 
order, that she shall have for her husband a man who has coimnand in 
his nature^ and can be trusted to rule her tierce subjects. These, in- 
deed, would never ' digest a foreign husband ;' and of her own sub- 
jects 'there was none, either for the reputation of his house or for the 
worthiness of himself, as well in wisdom, valiantness, as in all other 
good qualities, to be preferred or yet compared to him whom we have 
taken.' Again the document takes a twist. There must be something 
said to palliate the extraordinary haste in this royal marriage. Such 
alliances were generally aflairs on which a sort of congress of friendly 
royalties deliberated. It was but common decorum that she should 
have consulted the King of France, the Queen Mother, her uncle, the 
Cardinal, and some others. Here, again, she throws the blame on the 
importunity of her lover and the impatient pressure of the ruling 
powers of the country. Then, as if the writer felt alarm that what she 
said in her own vindication must react against the other, she pleads 
vehemently that all her friends must be the friends of him who is in- 
separably joined to her. The past is past. If he has been to blame, it 
was because his devotion overcame his discretion.'" (Burton's '" History 
of Scotland." Vol. IV., pages 229-230.) 



173 

curastances by passionate women to the objects of inordinate 
and illicit affection again, and again, in exevy age. Human nature 
never changes. The mode of expression, perhaps, may vary Avitli 
the times, but the ideas are always identical. Froude has been 
charged with bigoted prejudice against Mary. Even that does not 
invalidate his facts. Before those can be disregarded they must 
be disproved. All the advocates and champions who have come 
forward to exonerate Mary are no more than knight errants 
fighting windmills, unless they can demonstrate that he falsified 
the records. Examine his chapter xvi., vol. ix. The English 
Lords who considered these letters were convinced that Mary 
wrote them. Burton, (iv., xlvii., 278,) draws a conclusion, 
which is the only explanation of Mary's "giving in" and sign- 
ing her abdication at Loch Leven. He says that it was her 
knowledge of the existence of these letters that cowed her, and 
not the brutal conduct of the Rebel Lords that induced her to set 
her seal to her oAvn unthi-oning. Mary's friends admit that Bur- 
ton is fair, and, yet, Burton is more severe in his measured lan- 
guage than Froude in his asperity, and the former's arguments 
that the Casket Letters are genuine are not only unanswerable, 
but convincing. There is no question but that Bothwell was 
the master spirit. Still Mary was the temptress. A careless 
study of her character finds traits which at first seem incompa- 
tible with the spirit of the letters; but a closer analysis proves 
that her true character is revealed in them. The want of re- 
finement on which her friends found their denial is due to the 
time and not to her, and, being consistent with the time, do not 
invalidate the fact that a Queen wrote them. Another founda- 
tion on which her defenders build high is that she was a poet of 
ability. She was not ; and it is very doubtful if the prettiest 
verses attributed to her were not written at a later date by 
a bright Frenchman, in the same way that the noted wit. 



174- 

Rougemont, manufactured bon-mots for the Count d' Artois, 
and that Canibronne uttered a filthy word which Victor 
Hugo transmuted into a deathless, despairing outburst of 
heroism. Whether Mary did or did not write the few 
Hnes of her " Adieu to France," or other poetry attributed 
to her, had she not been a Queen, her versification would 
be deemed by an accomplished editor worthy of the waste 
basket. The " Casket Letters" are those of a passionate 
woman, loathing her husband and loving another man. They 
are as true to nature as a howl to a wolf or a roar to a lion. 
Whether or not Bothwell deserved such self-abandonment is 
something that cannot be brought into the question. Love is 
blind ; Love is lunacy ; and to discover why any woman loves 
any man a Votitrance^ is a question as impossible to solve as to 
comprehend hieroglyphics without a key to them. Mary Stu- 
art, of a "tough, healthy nature," which could accommodate 
itself to the brutality of her captivity at Loch Leven — " a lusty 
princess " — a full blooded woman, disgusted with an eiFeminate, 
debauched, " beardless Adonis," who caught her truant fancy, 
and yielded to the heroic roughness of the real man, Bothwell, 
in herself furnislies the clearest elucidation and the completest 
proof that the Casket Letters and Sonnets are genuine.* 

"Amour ! Amour quand tu nous tiens, 
On peut bein dire : Adieu prudence !" 

In this connection, the remark of the author of the 
"Heir of Redcliffe " is pertinent: "Hearts can find 



* Casket Letters. — xlrnold Gsdeke, Professor of History in tlie 
University of Heidelberg, in liis " Maria Stuart," published in 1879, 
in his text proper, Appendixes I., H., IH., has gone into a thorough 
analysis and examination of the Casket Letters, and his conclusions 
fully endorse the views expressed by the author. 



175 

more ways than you dream of" [to communicate their 
sentiments], "we had only to meet for the magnetism of 
mind to be felt." Exactly so ! It was this magnetism of 
mind first drew Bothwell and Mary together, and it 
breathes or influences or manifests itself throughout the 
"Casket Letters and Sonnets." Mary appears in them 
as vividly present in spirit as if she spoke them in person. 

People talk about the impassioned tone of the Casket Let- 
ters. Men and women felt and wrote four hundred years ago 
just as they feel and write to-day. Read Perkin Warbeck's love 
epistle to his ladye love, the " White Rose of Scotland," in 1493 
[see author's "Bothwell, a Vindication," page 11] and Otway'a 
love-letter to his mistress — composed under similar circum- 
stances to those of Bothwell and Mary — two hundred years 
ago, of which the following is a transcript. Do Mary Stuart's 
Casket Letters breathe more fervent, absolute passion or aifec- 
tion, term it what you will ? 

To Madam: My Tyrant: — I endure too much Torment 
to be silent, and have endur'd it too long not to make the severest 
complaint. I love you, I dote on you ; Desire makes me mad, 
when I am near you ; and Despair, when I am from you. Sure, 
of all Miseries, Love is to me the most intolerable : It haunts 
me in my Sleep, perplexes me when waking ; every melancholy 
Thought makes my Fears more powerful ; and every delight- 
ful one makes my Wishes more unruly. In all other uneasy 
Chances of a man's Life, there is an immediate Recourse to 
some kind of Succour or another : In Wants we apply ourselves 
to our Friends ; in Sickness to Pliysicians : But Love, the Sum, 
the Total of all Misfortunes, must be endur'd with Silence ; no 
Friend so dear to trust with such a Secret, nor Remedy in Art 



176 

so powerful as to remove its Arguish. Since tlie first day I saw 
you, I have hardly enjoyed one Hour of perfect Quiet. I lov'd 
you early ; and no sooner had I beheld that soft bewitching 
Face of yours, but I felt in my Heart the very Foundation of 
all my Peace give way : But when you became another's, I 
must confess that I did then rebel, had foolish Pride enough to 
promise myself I would in Time recover my Liberty : In spight 
of my enslav'd Nature, I swore against myself, I would not love 
you : I affected a Kesentment, stifled my Spirit, and would not 
let it bend so much as once to upbraid you, each Day it was 
my chance to see or to be near you : With stubborn Suflfer- 
ance, I resolved to bear, and brave your Power: Nay, did it 
often too, successfully. Generally with Wine, or Conversation 
I diverted or api)eas'd the Demon that possessed me ; but when 
at Night, returning to my unhappy self, to give my Heart an 
Account why I had done it so unnatural a Violence, it was then 
I always paid a treble Interest for the short moments of Ease, 
which I had borrow'd ; then every treacherous Thought rose up 
and took your part, nor left me 'till they had thrown me on my 
Bed, and open'd those Sluices of Tears, that were to run till 
Morning. This has been for some years my best Condition : 
Nay, Time itself, that decays all things else, has but increas'd 
and added to my Longings. I tell it you, and charge you to 
believe it, as you are generous (which sure you must be, for 
every thing, except your Neglect of me, persuades me that you 
are so) even at this time, tho' other Arms have held you, and so 
long trespass'd on those dear Joys that only were my Due. I 
love you with that Tenderness of Spirit, that Purity of Truth, 
and that Sincerity of Heart, that I could sacrifice the nearest 
Friends, or Interests I have on Earth, barely but to please you: 
If I had all the World, it should be yours ; for with it I could 
be but miserable, if you were not mine. I appeal to yourself 



177 

for Justice, if through the whole Actions of my Life, I have done 
any one thing that might not let yxDu see how absolute your au- 
thority was over me. Your Commands have been always sa- 
cred to me ; your Smiles have always transported me, and your 
Frowns aw'd me. In short, you will quickly become to me 
the greatest Blessing, or the greatest Curse, that ever Man was 
doomed to. I cannot so much as look on you without Confu- 
sion ; Wishes and Fears rise up in War within me, and work a 
cursed Distraction thro' my Soul, that mixst, I am sure, in time 
have wretched Consequences: You only can, with that bead- 
ling Cordial, Love, assuage and calm my Torments ; pity the 
Man then that would be proud to die for you and cannot live 
without you, and allow him thus far to boast too, that (take out 
Fortune from the Balance) you never were belov'd or courted by 
a Creature that had a nobler or juster Pretence to your Heart, 
than the Unfortunate (and even at this time) weeping Otway. 




23 




" I woke 
With his last word, 
And cried through tears and with uplifted hands: 
' Come back, beloved ; why to distant lands 
Row thy lone way ? Oh ! come and breathe again 
Thy perfumed words, spoke this time not in vain. 
Come back !' but the wide vales 
Return my yearning cry: 
*■ Come back I' but far he sails ; 
He heeds not my sad cry. 
' Oh ! come again, great stranger ; why depart ? 
Come back to heal my pierced, anguished heart.' 
I saw his airy skiff 

Sail up beyond the sea, 
Far o'er a cloudy cliff 

That overhung the sea. 
And never may return the rapture of my dream ? 
And never may I hear or know of him ? 
' Come, oh ! come to rae, — 
Oh ! hush, envenomed sea.' 
' Farewell, [Marie], to thee.' 
Would God I had awoke 
Before my heart was broke." 

—All the Year Round. 

" But now the hand of Fate is on the curtain, 
And gives the Scene to light." 

Drvden. 



Note. — If repetitions present tlieinselves in these successive chapters 
they are not the result of inadvertence, but intention ; endeavors to im- 
press certain proofs and arguments the more forcibly, in order to make 
more appreciable the evidence in Bothwell's favor, and render more 
secure Ms acquittal or exoneration. 

1T8- 




HE chronic condition or malady of the 
Scottish nation throughout the greater 
part of the • XVI. century was little 
better than that of Mexico after it was 
emancipated from the Spanish yoke, a 
constant and hot fever of revolution. 
After the death of James V., father of 
Mary, the Reformation, which had been kept down 
more particularly by Cardinal Beatoun, began to acquire 
a relative strength, such as it actually possessed in 
no other country. It grew stronger and stronger with 
every succeeding year, until it might have wrested the 
power from the Queen-Dowager, Mary of Guise, had it 
not been for the military intervention of the French. 
To the assistance of the Reform party Queen Elizabeth 
sent a fleet, under one of the ablest seamen and soundest 
commanders of the day, Admiral Winter, and an army 
under an excellent soldier and wise leader, Lord Grey. 
Between them the French were expelled. To this war, 
as regards the French fleet, as to previous and subse- 
quent ones with the same nation and others, especially 
with Spain, would apply the motto of the medal struck to 
commemorate the overthrow of the Invincible Armada:* 



* Divine Order. — " How often might a man, after he hath jumbled a set of letters in a 
bag, fling them out upon the ground before they would fall into an exact poem, yea, or so much 
as make a good discourse in prose ? And may not a little book be as easily made by chance, 
as this great volume of the world ? How long might a man be sprinkling colors upon a can- 
vas with a careless hand before they could happen to make the exact picture of a man? 
And is a man easier made by chance than his picture ? How long might twenty thousand 



180 

''Afflavit Deus et dissipantur. 

(God the Almighty blew, 
And the Armada went to every wind.)" 

"Well might the poet sing : 

" Thank him who isled us [English] here, and roughly set 
His Saxon in blown seas and storming showers." 

Just preceding their expulsion of the French the Queen- 
Dowager died, displaying at her end a policy which, if it 
had been exhibited at an earlier date, might have made the 
royal cushion of her daughter nmcli easier for its occu- 
pant. It was exactly the policy of Alexander Jannseus, 
King of Judea, in regard to the Pharisees, his life-long 
enemies and victims. His death-bed astuteness (B. C. 78) 
left his family in the possession of an authority which 
otherwise certainly would have been disputed. 

The enforced withdrawal of the French from Scotland, 
under the impulsion of England, very much resembled that of 
the forces of Louis Napoleon, three hundred years after- 
wards, from Mexico. In 1560 the English said "Go!" and the 
French went. In 1865 the re-united United States notified 
the French "Either go, or — !" that is, more imperatively 
"Go!" and without the necessity of the application of 
force, they went. As in 1560 in Scotland, so in 1865 in 
Mexico, the departure of the French left the popular party in 



blind men which should be sent out from the several remote parts of England, wander up 
and down before they would all meet upon Salisbury Plains, and fall into rank and file in 
the exact order of an army ? And yet this is much more easy to be managed than how the 
innumerable blind parts of matter should rendezvous themselves into a world." 

Archbishop John Tillotson. 



181 

the ascendant. When Mary returned, in 1561, the "Lords 
of the Congregation " exercised the controlling power. Her 
acceptance of Murray, their leader, enabled her to tide 
over the first four years of her administration in a sort of sul- 
len peace. Her sex and her graces, and her very impotence, 
had a great deal to do with the meanwhile acquiescence in 
her authority. As long as there was no king, and Murray 
controlled events, there was no actual outbreak. ISfo doubt 
the courage, ability and fidelity of Bothwell acted as a bal- 
ance-wheel, even in a so-shackly-piece of machinery. To 
use a very strong, but vulgar expression, Mary, undoubt- 
edly, felt a "sneaking kindness " for the Earl from the first 
time that they were thrown together after the death of 
her husband, Francis II., at the time (1560) when he 
was sent out by her mother, Mary of Guise, to France 
on a political mission. Bothwell had experienced the same 
love at first sight for her, when they met before the be- 
trothal in 1557-'8. This afiection was growing stronger 
and stronger, and might have resulted in a union which 
would have consolidated the monarchy, when Darnley 
made his appearance, and with his airs and graces ' ' cap- 
tured" the Queen. Mary was a "lusty princess," to use 
the expression of Froude (YIII.. 25), and her passionate 
nature took fire from the appejtizing "long lad." Through 
the intermediation of Rizzio, who, by the elevation of 
Darnley, expected to fortify his own influence, and that 
of his church, Mary became in fact, although not in law, 



183 

Darnley's bed-fellow. Altliougli this surrender of her 
person was not generally known, there were surmises of the 
true condition of affairs, and the niutterings of a storm 
were soon heard ominously. By the time that Mary was 
ready to marry Darnley, officially and publicly, she was 
not only tired of him, but evinced it.* (See 163, Su- 
pra, &c.) 

The Kelbrm party now rose in arms, but the enthusi- 
asm of the nation for their charming Queen, engineered by 
Bothwell, who she herself selected as her military represen- 
tative, her soldierly J.Zi^e/' -Ego^ conjured the menacing tem- 
pest, and those who had evoked it, after what was styled the 
"Run-about-raid," — sometimes styled, also, the "Round- 
about-raid" — were forced to take refuge in England. 
Had they not possessed the support of Elizabeth, man- 
ipulated with dexterity by her astute Ministry — than 
whom abler political pilots never conned and steered a 
ship of state — Mary might now have enjoyed some years of 



* " The sage and moderate statesman, Castelnau de Mauvissiere, 
was sent to Scotland to keep matters quiet, and a better messenger for 
such a purpose could not be found. Grave, conscientious, friendly and 
peaceful, he was beyond his age, and was peculiarly free of the impul- 
sive, warlike and ostentatious propensities which have characterized 
his countrymen in all ages. 

" It is signiticant that in the same memoir in which he describes the 
beginning of her headlong career (1565), he mentions Bothwell as her 
right-hand man, and likely to be made lieutenant-general of the king- 
dom — so ostensibly began this man's disastrous influence." (Burton, 
IV., 127-'8.) 



183 

tranquillity — that is, if she had a bold sagacious Bothwell 
by her side, instead of a cowardly imbecile, Darnley. 
Through the latter s brutish stupidity and insane jealousy 
of E-izzio, who had engineered his elevation, a new con- 
spiracy or " Bond " was formed against the Italian, which 
was aimed as well at Mary. It is pretty evident that if 
Mary, seven months gone with child, had perished at the 
same time with her Italian favorite, it would not have 
pained or disappointed the conspirators. If she had per- 
ished there and thus, Darnley would have been a feeble 
obstacle to the ulterior plans of the Murray party. Mary 
was a hardy creature and she survived the shock, to which 
ordinary women would have succumbed. Between her 
cajolery of Darnley, and the promptings of Bothwell, she 
again triumphed in the spring of 1566, as she had in the 
summer of the previous year. Darnley' s betrayal of his 
associates, through the subtle influence of Mary, made the 
conspirators, who had thus become the victims of his trea- 
son to them — though not by any means through his loyalty 
to his wife — his implacable enemies. Mary, who had long 
given her implicit confidence, as well as her affection, to 
Bothwell, now threw herself completely into his stalwart 
arms (see 49, supra). This was a result, of which to avert 
the possibility, for political reasons, Mary had brought 
about the marriage between the Earl and Jane Gordon, 
sister of the Earl of Huntley, and daughter of the great 



184 

Earl Huntley, whom she liad wickedly sacrificed, in 1563, 
to the fox-wolf-cnnning-and-voracity of Murray. 

It would have been far better for Mary Stuart if her sur- 
render of herself to the real man, Both well, had occurred 
before she threw herself at tlie head of the imitation of 
manhood, the immature Darnley. In the former case her 
passions would have been gratified without breach of law, 
and the law would have given her a support in the columnar 
Both well, which she could not have found in any other 
mate. The fierce blaze of the mutual craving of Mary and 
Bothwell, fanned by her increasing aversion to her husband, 
which seems to have gradually inspired her with a disgust 
at times amounting to loathing, re-awakened in Bothwell all 
his original passion and wildest hopes. These hopes devel- 
oped into the only real crime which is chargeable to him 
throughout life, the getting rid of Darnley, in order that 
he might occupy his every place. When Bothwell had 
been nearly killed in the performance of his duty as War- 
den of the Borders or Marches, and Mary flew as a dis- 
pairing sweetheart to the bedside of a severely wounded 
lover, the curtain rose on the first scene of a tragedy 
which closed with the ruin of both. From this time for- 
ward momentous events succeeded each other with a rap- 
idity almost unparalleled. To get rid of Darnley, and 
insure himself the sole possession of Mary, and to become 
king-consort, and through this ownership and elevation 
to acquire influence and authority to restore peace and 



185 

prosperity to his country — certainly a most landable mo- 
tive — Bothwell joined hand for the nonce with the Murray 
faction, and Mary lierself became a co-conspirator with her 
most dangerous enemies to free herself for good and all 
of the hated and hateful creature who stood between her 
and her love. The relations between herself and Bothwell 
are clearly set forth in the papers found in the " Silver 
Casket," already considered at length. (See pages supra.) 
Mary's de23ortment towards Darnley rendered him con- 
temptible, and his own attitude made liim detestable and 
dispicable in the eyes of all. How he strayed oif to 
Glasgow and fell sick, according to some surmises from 
an insufficient dose of poison — such as, in 1582, sufficed 
for the removal of the third Regent, the "good(?) Earl 
of Mar ;" — or was stricken down by afoul disease — said to 
have been brought back from America by the Spaniards ; 
or Italy, by the French, 1492-'7 — or by the small-pox ; 
whatever was the cause, he was dangerously ilL There 
is little doubt that Darnley had a reasonable presenti- 
ment that, if he remained in Scotland, he was sure of but 
a very short lease of life. He had threatened to fly the 
country and take refuge in France. Such a step would 
have traversed the hopes of Mary, the desire of Bothwell, 
and the plans of the conspirators. Mary's objective was a 
union with Bothwell; Bothwell' s the possession of Mary, 
and, with her, kingly power, and, with both, the restoration 
of Scottish affairs, and their establishment upon a sound 

24: 



186 

basis. Mary's views were simply those of a -woman in love ; 
those of Botliwell of a man in love, but also of a states- 
man, a general, a governor, and a patriot. The other con- 
spirators looked farther ahead than either to their own ag- 
grandisement at the expense of both. Could they manage 
it so that Botliwell, with Mary as his decoy and accom- 
plice, should, with their help, succeed in murdering Darn- 
ley ; then these confederated rebel lords, acting with the 
support of public opinion and the clergy, calculated to 
bring about a cataclysm which would sweep a"way both 
Mary and Both well, if the Queen took advantage of the 
death of Darnley to marry the generally accepted mur- 
derer. In this manner only could the great Earl be hurled 
from his pride of place. 

This was the project of the rebels, and it was based 
on their idea that, in getting rid of him, they demolished 
the greatest obstacle to their immediate and eventual suc- 
cess, seeing that he was the ablest and most powerful 
personality in Scotland. Feeling certain that Mary must be 
involved in his ruin, Murray and his peers, or rather assist- 
ants and "seids," could thereupon seize the reins of gov- 
ernment, exercise an authority akin to royal and divide 
the sj^oils. They realized the words of the Psalmist, 
'^ Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee." They suc- 
ceeded, but Nemesis avenged all. "While their meat 
was yet in their mouths, the wrath of God came upon 
them and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the 



187 

chosen men of Israel." [Scotland]. Mary got her man ; 
Bothwell grasped for one month the Royal power; Mm-- 
ray, Lenox, Mar, Morton, in succession, became Regents 
and perished ; meaner agents mounted higher steps of the 
ladder of j)referment and gain ; and yet, by poetical as 
well as prosaic justice to each, became applicable the words 
of St. Luke in regard to the exulting Herod, "The Lord 
smote him, * * * and he gave up the ghost. " 
It is curious how differently the judgment apparently 
opposite or applicable to different individuals will be 
warped to condemn the one, to absolve another, to miti- 
gate the penalty of a third, or, with a recommendation 
to mercy, excuse a fourth. If ever a human being lived 
who deliberately toled a confiding fellow-creature within 
reach of the deadly blow of a paramour — for after mak- 
ing every excuse and pleading every justification for him, 
Bothwell was a paramour in the present meaning of the 
word — Mary Stuart was the guilty one. He was her 
paramour in the remote sense of the word, which did not 
imply originally all that it does now, and he was the 
same in a bad sense.* Time, place, and circumstance, 



*The following eonvorsation from Dr. John Moore's "Zeluco" 
(1789), shows the same contradictory judgments upon Mary, one hun- 
dred years ago, as had already ruled, pro and con, for two hundred 
years and still rule throughout the world : 

" ' In what did he [Buchanan, the Historian] ever shew any want 
of honesty?' said Buchanan. 'In calumniating and endeavoring to 
blacken the reputation of his rightful sovereign, Mary, Queen of Scots,' 



188 

noble thoughts, great plans, patriotic objects, besides un- 
doubted affection, were his justification. He was a man 
of one absorbing idea. It was gratified. He ought to 
have been satisfied. His honeymoon was a realization 
of the magnificent story, " One of the Nights of Cleopa- 
tra," that wild concei^tion of Theophile Gautier. Both- 
well was the hero of Scottish history, Meiamoun of 
Egyptian romance. The latter a noble, fearless, Egyptian 
gentleman — became reckless in his infatuated love for 
Cleopatra. Fortune vouchsafed the successful revelation 
of his passion ; and the Queen rewarded his audacity with 
a night's possession of herself, with the proviso that, with 
the ensuing dawn, her audacious admirer should drink a 
deadly poison. Meiamoun willingly consents. He enjoyed 
and he perished. Both well was more favored. Instead 



replied Targe, ' the most beautiful and accomplished princess that ever 
sat on a throne.' * * * * * * 

" ' I fear you are too nearly related to the false slanderer whose name 
you bear !' said Targe. 'I glory in the name ; and should think myself 
greatly obliged to any man who could prove my relation to the great 
George Buchanan !' cried the other. ' He is nothing but a disloyal 
calumniator,' cried Targe, ' who attempted to support falsehoods by 
forgeries, which I thank heaven, are now fully detected !' ' You are 
thankful for a very small mercy!' resumed Buchanan, 'but since you 
provoke me to it, I will tell you in plain English that your bonnie 
Queen Mary was the strumpet of Bothwell, and the murderer of 
her husband !'" 

Moore, in his " Fables," remarks of Mary very much as Shake- 
speare of Cressida : 

"Tier very sTioe 7ia/) power to worinciy 



189 

of a niglit, Fate generously conceded a month. He likewise 
enjoyed, and to him the result was worse than the fatal 
draught provided by the daughter of Ptolemy. 

Mary lured Darnley into the death-trap. Goodhall 
declared, one hundred years ago, that Bothwell did not, 
murder Darnley, but that the same men-devils, who de- 
liberately slew Rizzio, avenged the Italian by slaying the 
ai'ch-plotter and tool, Darnley ; he, who was as criminal 
in his Judas' kiss, which signalled the death of the arrogant 
musician-mini ster-of-state on the night of the 9th-10th 
March, 1566, as Mary was guilty with a like Judas' kiss on 
the night of 9th — lOth February, 1567. It might be said 
her kiss served as the signal, as it were, for her revenge and 
her emancipation. The fiction generally accepted as absolute 
truth by the whole reading ]3ublic, with the exception of 
a few critics, sets forth that Darnley perished by the explo- 
sion of a comparatively small amount of powder, emptied 
loosely into the room sometimes occupied by the Queen, and 
underneath the one in which Darnley slept. Undoubtedly 
Bothwell intended the accomj)lishment of the death of 
Darnley by blowing up the house, but erred in his cal- 
culations, because at that day, and especially so in Scot- 
land, the explosive properties of gunpowder seem to 
have been very little understood. Loose powder, even in 
a very large quantity, would not have blown a stone 
building so solidly built as houses were then constructed — 
especially such an one as the Kirk of Field is described to 



1 90 

have been — all to pieces. It would have simply wrecked the 
interior, lifted off the roof, blown out doors and windows, 
and shattered everything except the floors and arches. In 
such a case^ had Darnley'' s death resulted from the pow- 
der deposited loosely hy BothweWs agents^ his corpse 
must have been hlachened^ charred and mutilojted. This 
was not the case, hut exactly the contrary. His body was 
found, without a sign of violence, tuw hundred and forty 
feet from the building, which was bloivn all to pieces. 
How is this to be accounted for \ Thus ! Before Both- 
well' s servants had brought thither, into the " Kirk-o- 
Field," a single grain of powder, mines had been laid 
under the house, their chambers heavily charged ; and 
everything thoroughly looked to. BotliM^ell's co-conspira- 
tors determined that there should be no failure, while they 
arranged matters so cleverly that the whole odium of the 
crime would fall upon the Earl, who was to profit imme- 
diately by it, they themselves indirectly. In any event, 
Darnley was to die. They would see to that. How then 
was it that the victim's body was found not singed, nor 
blurred, nor mutilated, so far from the house. Darnley, 
with a presentiment of evil, did not go to bed that night as 
promptly as usual, but sat up reading the Bible with his 
body-page, Taylor, who was found, near him, dead also. 
Alarmed at strange or unusual noises, which fell with 
startling and ominous force upon his sensitive hearing, 
attentive and suspicious, he fled from the house with Tay- 



191 

lor, before the explosion. His hopes of escape, however, 
were all in vain, since the house was entirely surrounded 
by the conspirators. This has been demonstrated at length 
in the author's "Vindication" of the Earl, published, at 
length, in the United Service^ for September and October, 
1882. Darnley and his page were caught by Sir Archibald 
Douglas, his kinsman, and others, assisting, and, after a 
violent struggle, strangled. The victim plead for mercy 
in piteous language, which was overheard and recorded, 
and struggled for his life with all the strength of a young 
and desperate man. The clothes of Douglas were all 
grimy with mire in consequence. Why, then, should Both- 
well dream that his preparations had slain Darnley ? He 
could not have seen what occurred, because high walls rose 
between him and the crime. He did not. He was com- 
pletely justified in always protesting his innocence. Why 
has so much abuse been poured out on Bothwell for his 
"supposed" murder of Darnley and so many excuses 
found for the public assassination of Cardinal Beatoun, by 
the Calvinists, 28th May, 1516, the sainted {sic) Kirkaldy 
participating and all the Reformers approving, and of Arch- 
bishop Sharpe by the Covenanters, 1st May, 1679. "The 
law and the testimony" must apply equally in all three 
cases. He intended that Darnley should be killed, and Mary 
approved of it, but neither were aware that their co-con- 
spirators had previously mined the house scientifically, and 
had surrounded the premises with a cordon of vigilant and 



192 

determined would-be mm-derers. Tliese did the deed. 
Why ? Because these luen-devils were resolved that not 
only one but three were to be sacrificed. Darnley on the 
spot, and afterwards Bothwell, and then Mary, through the 
eftects of the murder done by them upon the first named. 
After Darnley was dead and Bothwell and Mary driven 
into exile, or thrown into prison, or cast into the grave, 
then would come the seizure of the government and the 
division of the spoils. Darnley was the dupe in all and of 
all ; Mary was the lure ; Bothwell was the instrument and 
the dupe of Murray and his faction ; and all three were vic- 
tims in turn, and those who victimized perished, one by 
one, each in his turn, all without warning and without 
mercy. 

"Life's a bondage to the 'tickers' stern, immutable decrees."* 

Darnley was dead. Between Bothwell and Mary the 
only barrier remaining was extremely slight, and very 
easily removed. As heretofore shown, Bothwell in the pre- 
vious year had induced Mary to revive the ancient juris- 
diction of the Roman Catholic Consistorial Courts, which 
had been charged with trying the pleas of consanguinity ac- 
knowledged by that creed as valid reasons for divorce. This 
Roman Catholic Court was re-created or revived 33d De- 
cember, 1556. As Bothwell was married to Jane (Irving, 



* " My personal despair extended itself to all creation, and the law 
of fatality arose before me in such appalling aspect tliat my reason was 
sJiaken by it.''' Geokge Sand. 



193 

in his "Eminent Scotsmen," 227, styles her Elizabeth) 
Gordon, ou the 24tli February, 1566, any one not wilfully 
blind must acknowledge that, even at the time of the 
nuptials, or very soon after, Bothwell was looking forward 
to find means to bring about a union with Mary, He 
seemed to be convinced that in espousing Jane Gordon he 
was tying a knot which would be readily unloosed through 
her complaisant disposition " for a consideration." Cas- 
telnau, the French Ambassador, perceiving already, in 
September, 1565, that Mary had resolved upon following 
the dictates of her own passion, while he describes the 
beginning of her headlong career, he mentions "Bothwell 
as her right hand man, and likely to be made Lieutenant- 
General of the kingdom — so, ostensibly, began this man's 
disastrous influence." (Burton, TV., 128-9.) In the au- 
thor's two former works on Mary and Bothwell, sufficient 
attention has been j^aid to the details of occurrences be- 
tween the death of Darntey, 9th February, 1567, and 
Mary's third marriage with Bothwell on 15th May follow- 
ing. The latter was acquitted on his trial before the Privy 
Council and a Jury of his Peers, 12th April, 1567, and 
their verdict was ratified by the Scottish Parliament on 
the 14th of the same month. On the 19th, Bothwell gave 
a grand supper at the famous Annesley (Ainslie, Anslee) 
Tavern to the highest nobility and the first men of the 
country. Before the guests separated, the famous Bond 

was subscribed — Murray's signature assuredly heading 

25 



194: 

the list (Buckiiigliam T., 172-4), although, with his nsual 
duplicity, he was not present at the entertainment — declar- 
ing Botliwell'.s innocence and urging his marriage with the 
Queen. On the 21st April, with her own connivance and 
approbation, Mai-y was met aud escorted bj Bothw^ell to 
Dunbar. There altogether willingly or unwillingly, as 
her foes or her friends allege, the same intimate rela- 
tions at once existed, oi* Avere entered into, between Mary 
and Bothwell as, two years previously, between Mary and 
Darnley, after she had "handfasted " herself to the latter 
nearly four months before the public celebration of their 
uniou. Tw^o strong points in favor of Bothwell' s action, 
as consistent with Mary's wishes and careful collusion, are 
alw^ays ignored by her friends in treating of wdiat they 
elect to style her "■ ravishing " — which was simply conduct- 
ing her with the honor of a great lord and the humility of 
a grand lover to one of the chief military strongholds and. 
royal residences of the kingdom. First, Agnes Strick- 
land, and all her associates, in whiteM-ashing Mary, dwell 
on the fact that the Queen w\as slightly attended when 
Bothwell met her at the appointed place, as agreed upon 
betw^een them, and consequently could not resist him, and 
that there was no escort of 300 horsemen, as alluded to in 
the Casket Letter, styled "Supposititious." These cham- 
pions ignore sJte did have an escort of 300 the ^previous 
day^ but managed to dismiss, or get rid, of tlien:i, that there 
might not be the slightest obstacle to traverse Bothwell' s 



195 

nominal seizure, or to justify her in making even a seem- 
ing opposition. Mary has been defended with all the sub- 
tlety of criminal lawyers' exhausting casuistry to save a 
criminal, whereas Bothwell has scarcely found an advocate 
who would dare to enter a plea in his favor. Second, 
Schiern (242-6), who is no enemy of Mary, here steps in 
most opportunely with an argument which, supported as it 
is by documentary and circumstantial evidence, seems to be 
unanswerable. 

"This impression was, however, soon forced to give way 
before the opinion which subsequently prevailed in Scot- 
land, according to which no doubt could be entertained, 
even from the beginning, that what Bothwell had under- 
taken was done in consequence of an agreement with 
Mary. His conduct was more precisely accomited for at 
the time in three ways. It was, in Scotland, an old practice 
that papers were drawn up, by which any one obtained 
pardon for crimes, this was done so that only the chief 
crime was expressly mentioned, while merely a clause was 
added, describing in general tei-ms what oifences tlie per- 
son concerned had besides committed. Buchanan accord- 
ingly holds that as the murderers of the King, and especi- 
ally Bothwell, were afraid that there might come a time 
when it would be seriously resolved to punish them for 
the deed, they had found out that by the help of such a 
clause they would be able to get the crime pardoned, the 
express mention of which in a document might appear as 



196 

dangerous to the perpetrators as it would be unseemly for 
the j)ardoner. The murder of the Queen's husband could 
not be mentioned, but another crime of high treason, 
which was less odious, must be found out, under screen 
of which the murder of the King, as by a piece of sophis- 
try, could be concealed and forgiven. An attack ujDon the 
Queen's exalted person was such an aggravated crime, and 
therefore nothing more fitting for the purpose could be 
contrived than that feigned abduction. Others explained 
the strange transaction by alleging that its design was to 
stop the mouths of those who had long thought that the 
Queen stood in a too intimate relation to the Earl. More 
natural than both far-fetched explanations is that which, 
while still seeing in the abduction merely a j)reconcerted 
piece of acting, interpreted it as a direct result of an im- 
moderate love for Both well, which made her impatiently 
long to be able to call him her own. As they who favor 
this mode of explaining the hurried marriage proceed 
upon the supposition that the passion had long hefore led 
Mary to give herself up to the Earl., so one of her later 
defenders believes that he is able to exj^ose the foolishness 
of any such explanation by asking the question : ' ' Where 
was the necessity for a precipitate marriage at all ? AVas 
Mary so eager to become Both well's wife, with whom she 
indeed had. long been indulging in an illicit intercourse, 
that she could not wait the time demanded by common 
decency to wear her widow's garb for Darnley? Was she 



197 

really so entirely lost to every sense of female delicacy 
and public sliame — so utterly dead to lier own interests 
and reputation — or so very scrupulous about a little longer 
continuing her unlicensed amours, that, rather than suffer 
the delay of a few months, she would thus run the risk of 
involving herself in eternal infamy?" These questions 
are not without force for those against whom they are 
directed ; hut, if the relation he apprehended someiohat 
di-fferently, it loould he possible to meet them. There is 
vyitli regard to the ahduction, and the sid)sequent sudden 
marriage, a circumstance which is not ordinarily taken 
into consideration in this connection, but to which we 
might refer as an answer. Immediately after Mary'' s 
third marriage her opponents declared that she had again 
hecome pregnant, and, when the Queen was confined a 
prisoner at Lochleven, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, who 
had been sent by Elizabeth to Scotland to negotiate her 
release, wrote in a letter from Edinburgh, of 18th July, 
156Y, to his mistress : ' I have also persuaded her to con- 
form herself to renounce Botliw^ell for her husband, and 
to be content to suffer a divorce to pass betwixt them ; she 
hath sent me word that she will in no ways consent unto 
that, but rather die, grounding herself upon this reason, 
taking herself to be seven weeks gone with child ; by re- 
nouncing Bothwell, she should acknowledge herself to be 
wath child of a bastard, and to have forfeited her honor, 
which she will not do to die for it.' Might not Mary, 



198 

under tJie supposition of which she niakes mention^ have 
at this time or earlier Jjelieoed her pregnancy to he of 
older date? And, if the Queen Lad such fear after Darn- 
ley's death, niight not Bothwell then have found the final 
encouragement to venture on abduction, and the Queen 
afterwards an incentive for not at this time rejecting his 
hand? Even if the abduction to Dunbar had not taken 
place with the Queen's will, yet the opposition which she 
there exhibited to Bothwell was, at all events, so small 
in comparison with her former brave behavior during the 
catastrophe which put an end to Rizzio's life, that this 
weakness becomes the weightiest — and properly the only 
incontrovertible — reason for assuming an earlier and more 
inti/mate nnderstanding between her and tJte Earl than 
she has plainly admitted. AVhen some one mentioned to 
David Hume that a new treatise had been published, the 
author of v\diich was believed to have successfully vindi- 
cated Mary, the historian only asked : *• Has he also proved 
that the Queen did not marry Bothwell V and, when no 
affirmative answer could be given, he signified that the 
attempt had failed. ' ' (Schiern' s ' ' Bothwell, ' ' 2-1:2-' 6. ) 

To confirm Professor Schiern' s view, turn to Raumer 
(" Queen Elizabeth and Qneen Mary," Letter xxviii., 1569. 
Edition of 1836, p. 161). '•'■ iWary never spohe decidedly 
respecting the murder of Darnley and her connection 
with BothiLiell^ or produced any fact in support of her 
innocence. When Sir Francis IvnoUys at length plainly 



199 

put the question to her, she answered, as usual, in some 
general expressions, and began to weep ; on this he broke 
off the subject." For whatever reasons, she changed her 
views, if she did do so. Lady Lennox, Darnley's mother, 
in 1570, believed Mary " indisputably guilty," and Mary's 
ambassador, the Bishop of Ross, when the terrors of 
death were upon him, "and while making a clean breast 
of it, he admitted to Dr. Wilson her [Mary's] share of 
the murder of Darnley." This admission is pass-key to 
all the rest. 

On the 27th April, the Roman Catholic Consistorial 
Tribunal was authorized to entertain an action of divorce 
by Bothwell against his wife. The proceedings began 5th 
May, and judgment was given in his favor on the 7th. 
Whoever presumes to question Mary's complicity in the 
whole matter is simply ignorant that, to accomplish this 
"Mary had to come personally forward and issue a special 
authority to that end" (Burton, lY., 221). Li the mean- 
while Bothwell' s wife sued for a divorce against her hus- 
band, before the Protestant Civil Court, on the ground of 
adultery, which was almost simultaneously granted on the 
3d May. On the 5th April — mark this! — Sir James Mac- 
intosh says that the suit of the Countess of Bothwell 
against her husband "commenced almost 07i the day 
wliich the Queen specified as that on which she alleged 
she had Ijcen violated hy Bothvjell.'''' (Buckingham I., 
197.) Mary and Bothwell were married according to both 



200 

the Protestant and Roman Catholic rites. Bothwell's ^ 
biographer, Schiern, who examined all the evidence on 
this disputed point, says the doiible marriage presents 
perfectly clear proof (p. 258 and note 1) that it was so 
celebrated according to the Reformed and Romanist man- 
ners. Buckingham (I., 200-'2) is equally explicit, and 
endeavors to explain it on the plea of compulsion. Other 
historians concur. How any doubt could have arisen 
or a mistake have occurred can be easily explained. 
Bothwell had always refused to allow the Roman Catholic 
clergy to interfere in his affairs, and, therefore, his Protest- 
ant rites were public, although, perhaj^s, to satisfy the preju- 
dices of his bride, he consented to permit a more private 
marriage according to the Roman Catholic form. Can 
anything be more sly than Romanism ? and Buckingham 
clears it up by stating ' ' they were married according to 
the forms of both churches, by Adam Bothwell, Bishop of 
Orkney, and a Catholic priest whose name has not been 
recorded." 

Bothwell's attitude, as soon as he became lord of the 
land, was noble. His announcement of the accomplished 
fact to Charles IX. of France was dignilied and M^orthy 
of his new position. What he wrote to Elizabeth of Eng- 
land was almost haughty and defiant. His letter to her like 

" His tread rings iron, as to battleward." 

The Murray faction had now attained their object. 
According to their rejpresentations^ Bothwell had long 



201 

been Mary's paramour: lie and he alone had murdered 
her husband Darnley ; Mary was his accomplice ; immedi- 
ately after the murder she had hastened to bring about a 
divorce — before a court constituted or revived by her Koyal 
authority, and especially called upon by herself to act in 
this case — between Bothwell and his wife ; and she, an 
adulteress and the accomplice of the murderer, had pro- 
fited by his deed to marry within ten days after the di- 
vorce, an adulterer, an assassin, and a regicide. What is 
more, these noble conspirators accused her and her hus- 
band of not only being desirous of getting possession of 
her son by Darnley, the royal infant afterwards James 
VI., but even of attempting to poison him. This crime, of 
' ' burking " little James YI. , was the very one Doctor Story 
confessed to in 1570. '' It was nothing else than making 
M^ay with the little King of Scots, in the belief that with 
his life would be removed the principal obstacle to his 
mother's [Mary's] marriage with some Catholic prince." 
(Froude, X. , 94. ) All of Bothwell and Mary' s accusers were 
themselves the originators, abettors, executives of the 
crimes they charged upon the Queen and her consort, who 
only acted in accordance with their desires, their sugges- 
tions and in furtherance of their ends. Such treachery, 
hypocrisy, betraying and sacrificing is scarcely recorded 
elsewhere in history. Grant that Mary and Bothwell 
were guilty, what were their accusers ? Bothwell's crime, 
if he was as culpable as charged against him, was the 
26 



202 

single one that can he brought against himself throughout, 
for his era, an nnnsually loyal and honorable career. 
Mnrray, Knox's sainted Murray, had been the contriver 
and instigator of crime after crime for the past seven 
years. He had kept his fingers ont of the fire, but he 
had looked through his fingers at the execution of every 
guilty deed which lie had instigated. As an example of 
an honest man and a faitliful subject, as a brother and a 
minister of state, he was a consummate fraud. Plis co- 
adjutors, co-consj^irators, accomplices, instruments, asso- 
ciates, were, according to poor Hamlet's expression, "as 
foul as Vulcan's stithy." In comparison to Murray's 
particular friend, Morton,* the concrete of corruption, 
Bothwell was a miracle of virtue, and, indeed, among the 
black flock of ravens which joined in hoarse congratula- 
tion over the corpse of Rizzio and rejoiced over the stark 
body of Darnley, Bothwell, amid such a repulsive brood, 
was exactly what Petrick styled him, that ^'' rara ams^ a 



* The best evidence of the popular opinion in England as to the 
especial guilt of Morton is to be found in the many plays of the 
actual and succeeding periods, in which Mary Stuart is introduced. 
Several instances have already been adduced : the following is even 
more pertinent. It is from J. Bank's "■Albion Queens.'" 

NoRB'OLK {speaks). " Now, only now's the time ; the traitor Morton, 
The false, usurping Regent, is returned, 
With all the magazine of hell about him. 
The Queen, my lovely Albion Queen's in danger ; 
And if thou wilt not straight advise thy friend, 
Mary 's undone, and Norfolk is no more." 



203 

WHITE CROW." Mary had scarcely been united to tlie con- 
sort selected and urged upon lier by her chief nobility— a 
consort whom they had solemnly pledged themselves to 
sustain against all enemies — than the very magnates who 
signed the Ainslie "Bond" in favor of the man of her 
choice and of her marriage with him, entered into a new 
"Bond" to destroy both. The falsity of their excuses 
for this was as vile in itself as consistent with their 
hypocrisy and villainy. Among other charges they al- 
leged that they bonded to 23rotect their infant king, and 
only rose against him because Bothwell had demanded the 
custody of the baby prince, whereas the whole of their 
action was inimical to him before Bothwell had even inti- 
mated anything which could be construed into a desire 
that the royal child should be delivered to his care. 

Hitherto, as a rule, with a few honorable exceptions, 
writers who have treated of the principal events in the life 
of Bothwell constitute a chorus of different voices or 
tones, which in its union of effect is damnatory. This is 
the more surprising as every one of the singers has to de- 
pend on the same score or authorities in producing his 
music. And, yet, although the general result is adverse, 
the testimony emanating from the majority of composers 
unfavorable or partially favorable to him is anything but 
depreciative. In no event of his life is he made to appear 
so badly as at Carberry Hill; and, yet, even then, the 
French Ambassador, Du Croc, who disliked Bothwell, is 



204 

compelled to admit, in his record of this Sunday spectacle, 
that Both well had not only jDrofited by his military studies 
and experience, but by his early training in the "human- 
ities." 

" I cannot hut say that I sato a great captain p^'esent 
hhnself with the utmost confidence, and one who led his troops 
with bravery and prudence.'''' How certain Bothweli still was 
of the issue of the day at the departure of Du Croc, he also 
showed, when, on seeing his foes cross the stream, he advised 
this mediator " to imitate him wlio wished to estabUsh peace 
and friendship between the armies of Scipio and Hannibal 
when these two armies were about to come to blows, just as 
the two before them were going to do, but who, when he could 
do nothing and was unwilling to take part with either side, 
chose for himself a place as a spectator, and thus became wit- 
ness of the grandest sight which he had ever seen ; if Du Croc 
would now do the same he woidd never live to witness a 
greater entertainment, for he should see them fight bravely." 

Despite this acknowledged capacity for leadership of 
Bothweli, it would have been impossible for a Frederic the 
Great to fight against a superior force, even as to numbers, 
of comparatively trained soldiers, variously estimated at 
from two to four thousand — under commanders of con- 
siderable experience — with a kernel of two hundred Arque- 
busiers constituting the Queen's body-guard, and another 
small troop of his own personal followers, backed by a 
rabble not more nmnerous than the array of old soldiers 
opposed to them. 



206 

The majority of historians, poets and romancers com- 
bine to accnse Bothwell of want of courage in abandoning 
Mary at Carberry Hill. Aytonn, who, in his poem, 
"Bothwell," is cruel enough to write (Part vi., xl,,) 

" Was it a dream ? Or did I liear 
A yell of scorn assail my ear, 
As frantic from the host I rode? 
The very charger I bestrode 
Rebelled in wrath against the rein, 
And strove to bear me back again ! 
Lost, lost ! I cared not where I went — 
Lost, lost ! and none were there, 
Save those who sought in banishment 
A refuge from despair." — 

in his note to this stanza, the same author is compelled 
to admit, contradicting himself (258), "I must do Both- 
well the justice to say : * * * ^' His challenges 
loere not mere hravado^ but he ivas almost insanely 
anxious to meet Morton in single eomhat. Bothwell 
was a man of great physical courage, v:hich is more than 
can he said of the adversary [Morton, the Ahitophel of 
the period] whom he selected.'''' * 



*"I have endeavored, as nearly as poetical requirements would al- 
low, to follow history accurately. I interpret the events thus. Bothwell, 
by carrying Mary otf to Dunbar, at once consummated his own ruin. 
His fellow-conspirators might easily have rescued her from his hands ; 
but their object was to have her ma/rried to him, so they delayed. After 
the marriage had taken place, they lost no time, but strengthened 
themselves by calling in the aid of such of the Border barons as re- 
garded with jealousy the increasing power of the House of Hepburn. 
They could also depend upon the assistance of the craftsmen of Edin- 
burgh, a body trained to the use of arms, and not degenerate from 



' 206 

The real facts of the case are these. Bothwell and 
Mary advanced to Carberry Hill with a force of abont 2500 



their fathers, who had fought valiantly at Flodden. Bothwell, on the 
other hand, had none beyond his own troopers in whom he could place 
perfect reliance. The royal summons had brought to Dunbar many 
of the East-Lothian barons, headed by Lords Seton, Tester and 
Borthwick ; but they were not partisans of Bothwell, and came simply 
on account of the Queen. Bothwell was perfectly aware of this, and 
of the Queen's desire to escape, if possible, from his hands ; and that 
knowledge accounts for his behavior. I shall quote one more from 
Melville : 

" 'Both armies lay not far from Carberry : the Earl of Bothwell's 
men camped upon the hill, in a strength very advantageous ; the Lords 
encamped at the foot of the hill. And albeit her Majesty there. I 
cannot call it her army, for many of those who were with her were 
of opinion that she had intelligence with the Lords, especially such as 
were informed of the manj^- indignities put upon her by the Earl of Both- 
well since their marriage. * * * Thus part of his own company 
detested him ; other part of them believed that her Majesty would fain 
have been quit of him but through shame to be the doer of the deed di- 
rectly herself.' * ■" * "'I must do BotJmell the justice to say that, 
from all the accounts extant, his challenges were not mere bravado, but that 
he teas almost insanely anxious to meet Morton in single combat. Both- 
well was a, man of great physical courage [" gifted with superhuman dar- 
ing" — Lamartine], ichich is more than can be said for the adversary whom 
he selected, who was very glad to accept of Lord Lindsay of the Byres 
as his substitute ; but a duel under such circumstances would have 
been ridiculous. Mary Avanted to be rid of Bothwell, and signfied as 
much to the Lords who came in obedience to her summons ; but, with 
that noble spirit which was always her characteristic, she refused to 
make any terms with the confederated nobles until Bothwell's retreat was 
secured. Then, and not till then, she took an everlasting farewell [ut- 
terly false aud unsusceptible of proof] of the man who, instigated by 
others, worse traitors than himself, had achieved her ruin. Her [fiend- 
ishly treacherous] reception in the camp of the confederates does not 
fall within the scope of the poem." Aytoun's "'Bothwell.'''' 



2or 

militia and some 200 regular musketeers. The traitor 
lords confronted him with a sui3erior number of compara- 
tively trustworthy troops. Le Croc, the French Ambassa- 
dor, a competent judge, admits that Bothwell with his 
motley array displayed admirable generalship. Le Croc 
had so little friendly feeling for Bothwell that he refused 
to be present at his marriage to the Queen. Consequently 
any commendation from him is the highest praise, and 
can be relied upon. Had Bothwell attacked at once, now 
that the little armies were looking each other in the face, it is 
most likely that he would have been victorious. Unfortun- 
ately Mary insisted upon negotiations ; hours were wasted ; 
her "following" without food as without discipline, be- 
came tired with waiting, degenerated into an armed mob, 
took possession of some wagons loaded with wine, drank 
freely upon empty stomachs, got drunk, and were soon 
beyond control. The last envoy of the confederate lords, 
Kirkaldy of Grange, deluded Mary with his specious reputa- 
tion for chivalry, and she determined to trust him, to her 
ruin. Bothwell, with his common sense, saw through the 
trickery and ordered a musketeer to shoot him. If ever a 
wise end could justify violent means, Bothwell was right. 
He wanted to kill Melville under similar circumstances, and 
he was wise also in that case, as it " turned out. Mary 
interposed, saved Kirkaldy, blasted her own life and 
character, as well as that of Bothwell, and ruined both. 
It is sometimes best to violate the laws of propriety when 



308 

those ill the right are dealing with others altogether in the 
wrong. 

Rapin is very clear on these points. Mary always ruined 
her own canse by obstinacy and precipitation. Bothwell's 
error in taking the field at tliis time, arose from courage 
and consciousness of right. The meeting and parting at 
Carberry Hill has never as yet, as a whole^ been clearly 
stated or fairly told. 

Bothwell's M^orst enemies admit that he was very 
anxious to meet Morton at Carberry Hill. The miscreant 
would not figlit. Lindsay offered to take his place, but the 
Queen forbade the combat. Bothwell certainly had a right 
to choose his opponent, and the husband of a Queen was 
justified in selecting as his antagonist the chief among his 
foes, particularly when that chief was the arch-traitor both 
to himself and to his wife, one in whose blood he had 
threatened to wash his hands if he had the opportunity. 

If Bothwell had not perfectly understood Ivirkaldy, it 
might have been a dishonorable act to shoot a parliament- 
ary acting under a flag of truce. But, Mall any military 
man deny that, if an envoy is using his immunity from 
peril or prison to deceive, a general who grasps the situ- 
ation, who knows that the success of the operation will 
depend on the triumph of tlie deception, and that it is 
likely to succeed through the ignorance and weakness of a 
coadjutor — can, in such a case, any military man deny the 
right of a commander to dispose, summarily, of an indi- 



209 

vidual seeking to betray under a flag of truce, and thus, 
by shooting the intriguer, frustrate the intended treach- 
ery ? "Fraud vitiates every contract," says the law. 
Bothwell knew Kirkaldy of okl, saw through and through 
the man, felt he was no better than a traitor, and the 
event proved that Bothwell' s judgment was correct. O 
wonderful "Book of books" and exponent of common 
sense, the Bible ! what marvelous revelations it discovers 
of the workings of the human heart. Hebrews (XII., 17) 
says of Esau, "He found no place for repentance, though 
he sought it carefully with tears." Kirkaldy afterwards, 
carried away by the demoniac fascination of Mary's 
charms,* repented of his conduct towards the Queen, and 
became her champion, and Morton, become Regent, of 
whom he was the tool in this Sabbath-betrayal on Carberry 
Hill, got hold of him after he surrendered to the Engliah, 
and, soldier as he undoubtedly was, denied him a sol- 
dier's death, and hung him like a felon. 



* " Oh, the horrid little monster that I am. Why can't I help it? / 
verily believe I shall flirt in my shroud, and, if I were canonized, my 
first miracle would be, like St. Philom67ia^s, to make my own relics pre- 
sentable. — " Hopes and Fears," by the ai;thor of the " Heir of Red- 
clyffe." 



Authorities in the Author's Possession. 
Anecdotes of Distinguished Persons. Vol. I. London, 1798. 
Aytoun, W. E. Bothwell. Edinburgh, 1856. 
Balmanno, Mrs. Pen and Pencil. New York, 1858. 
Bekker, Dr. Ernst. Maria Stuart — Darley — Bothwell. Giessen, 1881. 
Benger, Miss. Mary, Queen of Scots. 2 vols. London, 1823. 

27 



210 

Boulding, J. Grimsett. Mary, Queen of Scots. A Tragedy. London, n.d. 
Brown, James H. Scenes in Scotland. Glasgow, 1833. 
Buchanan, George. Detection of Mary, Queen of Scots. London, 1721. 
Buchanan's History of Scotland. 2 vols. London, 1733. 
Buckingham, L. S. F. Mary Stuart. 2 vols. London, 1844. 
Burton, John H. History of Scotland. 8 vols. Edinburgh, 1873. 
Burton, John, H. The Scot Abroad. New Ed. Edinburgh, 1881. 
Campbell, Hugh. Case of Queens Mary and Elizabeth. London, 1825. 
Chalmers, George. Mary, Queen of Scots. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1822. 
Cunningham, A. Mary, Queen of Scots. London, 1838. 
Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Vol. V. New York, 1875. 
Dargaud, J. M. Marie Stuart. 2 vols. Paris, 1850. 
Ebner-Eschenbach. Marie, Freifrau. Aphorisms. Trans, by Mrs. Wister. 
Eminent Scotsmen. (Society of Ancient Scots.) London, 1821. 
Froude, James A. History of England. 12 vols. New York, 1875. 
Gaedeke, Arnold. Maria Stuart. ' Heidelberg, 1879. 
Gauthier, Jules. Marie Stuart. 3 vols. Paris, 1869. 
Grant, James. Bothwell. London, n. d. 
Grant, James. Mary of Lorraine. London, n. d. 
Harpers' Monthly. Mary, Queen of Scots. February, 1873. 
Hosack, John. Mary, Queen of Scots, and her Accusers. 2d. ed. 2 vols. 
Edinburgh, 1870. 

Irving, Joseph. Eminent Scotsmen. Paislej^, 1881. 
King and the Commons; Cavalier and Puritan Songs. Edited hj Morley. 
New York, 1869. 

Labanoff, Prince Alex. Lettres de Marie Stuart. 7 vols. Londres, 1844. 

La Collection des Portraits de Marie Stuart. St. Petersbourg, 1856. 

Lamartine, Alphonse de. Mary Stuart. Boston, 1881. 

Leadei', J. D. Mary, Queen of Scots, in Captivity. Sheffield, 1880. 

Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots. Agnes Strickland. 3 vols. London, 1843. 

Life of the Regent Moray. Edinburgh, 1828. 

Lingard, John. History of England. Vol. V. Paris, 1840. 

MacLeod, Donald. Mary, Queen of Scots. New York, 1857. 

Marie. Queen of Scots. From the Latin, n. d. 

Meline, James F. Mary, Queen of Scots. New York, 1872. 

Melville, J. G. Whyte. Queen's Maries. London, n. d. 

Mignet, M. Marie Stuart. 2 vols. Paris, 1854. 

Mignet, M. Mary Stuart. 2 vols. Translation of preceding. 



211 

Opitz, Theodor. Maria Stuart. 2 vols. Freiburg, 1879. 

Petit, M. Marie Stuart. 2 vols. 4to. 

Patrick, Dr. Phil. A. Zur Geschichte des Grafen Botliwell. St. Peters- 
bourg, 1874. 

Petrick, Dr. Phil. A. Briefe der Kdnigin Maria Stuart an Bothwell und 
deren Unechtheit. St. Petersbourg, 1873. 

Portraits of Illustrious Personages. London, n. d. 

Schiller, Frederick. Mary Stuart. London, 1854. 

Schiern, Frederick. Life of Bothwell. Edinburgh, 1880. 

Scribner's Monthly. Mrs. Oliphant's Mary, Queen of Scots. 

Scottish Biographical Dictionary. (Scoto-Brittanicus.) Edinburgh, 1822. 

Scott, Sir Walter. Scotland. Vol. II. Philadelphia, 1830. 

Scott, Sir Walter. Monastery and Abbot. Philadelphia, 1852. 

Smith, Rev. James. The Coming Man. 2 vols. London, 1873. 

Strickland, Agnes. Mary, Queen of Scots. 3 vols. Bohn, London, 1873. 

Stuart, John. Lost Chapter in History of Queen Mary Recovered. 
Edinburgh, 1874. 

Swarbreck, S. D. Sketches in Scotland. Folio. London, 1839. 

Swinburne. Chastelard. New York, 1866. 

Swinburne. Bothwell. 2 vols. London, 1875. 

Swinburne. Mary Stuart. New York, 1881. 

Teulet, M. Lettres de Marie Stuart. Paris, 1859. 8vo. 

Townend, William. Descendants of the Stuarts. London, 1858. 

TurnbuU, William. Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots. London, 1845. 

Tyng, Rev. S. H. Recollections of England. London, 1847. 

Von Raumer, Frederick. Queen Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots. 
London, 1836. 

Von Raumer, Frederick. History of the 16th and 17th Centuries. 2 vols. 
London, 1835. 

Von Raumer, Frederick. England during the 16th., 17th and 18th Cen- 
turies. 2 vols. London, 1837. 

Wiesener, L. Maria Stuart et Bothwell. Paris, 1863. 

Yonge, C. M. Unknown to History. New York, 1882. 

Besides a number of other well-known standard historical and bio- 
graphical works on Mary Stuart, John Knox, the Regent Murray, &c., 
&c., in the different public libraries in the city of New York, and various 
biographical sketches in German, French and English, published in 
Europe and America. 



212 



Omission. Note to page 175 supra, second paragraph. — In " Both- 
well ; a Vindication," page 11, was furnished a copy of a Love Letter, 
penned in 1492; and in the present work, page 175-7, supra, the copy 
of another Love Letter, written about 1700. Here, subjoined, is the 
copy of a Royal Love Letter, indited in 1613, by the " Foremost man 
of all this Modern World," Gustaf Adolf, to his sweetheart, the lovely 
Ebba Brahe, at the age of nineteen, a chere amie, out of whose posses- 
sion he was basely tricked. The three are worthy of comparison. 

" Stockholm, 5th April, 1618. 
" Most Noble Damsel, adored of my heart, 

WHOM I love most IN THIS WORLD : 

"I have received your loving letter, by which you tell me you 
liave submitted to the good pleasure of your father, at my request, 
with which T must content myself Praying God to bend in grace your 
heart, that you think always on me, and remember the faithful love I 
bear you ; and that you may never be persuaded that I think of 
another than you. Oh, may you pray God, as well as I, that He may 
let us live to see the day which may bring me the soft consolation and 
to you the joy. To his guidance — tlie Holy and Almighty — I commend 
you, faithful and tender ; and myself to your breast, so noble and 
faithful. — I, to my dying day, oh, cherished maiden of my heart, your 
faithful and attached kinsman. G. A. R." 

Horace Marryat's " One Year in Sweden," Vol. I., page 392. 




Bothweil's Book-Stamp. 




" The word ! Do you remember, Meister? I told you then, that you had found the 
right one. * * But you look like a happy man, and to what do you owe it ? 

To the Wo7-d^ the only right word : 'Art ! ' " 

He let her finish the sentence, then answered gravely : 

" There is still a loftier word, noble lady ! Whoever owns it is rich indeed. He will no 
longer wander — seek in doubt." "And this is ? " she asked incredulously, with a smile of 
superior knowledge. 

" I have found it," he answered firmly. "• It is ' Love ! ' " 

Sophonisba bent her head, saying softly and sadly, " Yes, yes ; Love ! " 

George Eber's ^^A I'Vord^ only a Word" page 348. 

^^But^ mortal pleasure^ what art thou in truth ? 
The torrent's smoothness ere it dash below." 
Caimpbell. 

" Discarding modern historians, who in too many instances do not seem to entertain the 
slightest scruple in dealing with the memory of the dead." * * * "/ (i„i 

not ashamed to own that I have a deep regard for the memory of [Bothwell] 
Lord Dufidee — a rega'rd founded on the firm belief in his pi/ldic and private 
virtues^ his high and chivalrous ho?tor^ and his iDisliaken loyalty to his sovereign. 
But those feelings, however strong, would never lead me to vindicate an action of wanton 
and barbarous cruelty, or even attempt to lessen the stigma by a frivolous or dishonest 
excuse. No cause was ever efiFectually served by mean evasion, any more than it can be 
promoted by unblushing exaggeration or by gross perversion of facts." 

Wm. E. Aytoun, ''^ Regarding John Graham^ of ClaverJiouse^ l'iscoii?it of Dzindee." 



"Women are the priestesses of Predestination. 



D'IsRAELi's ^''Coningsby." 



" The man who [like Bothwell] anticipates his century is always persecuted when living 
and is always pilfered [robbed of his credit] when dead." D'Israeli's ^''Viviaii Gray^ 

''^With hitn his Fortune played as with a hall., 
She first has tossed him up, and now she lets him fall." 
I'erscs on I\Iedallion of Count Griffenfeld, Royal Librai-y^ Copenhagen. 

"//f will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country [or 
as in the margin, ' the captivity of a man '] : there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of 
thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. And I will drive thee from thy station, 
and from thy state shall he pull thee down." [What could be more apposite to the end of 
Bothwell than these verses.] Isaiah, xxii., 18, ig. 

"■ The black earth yawns, the mortal disappears." 

Tennyson's ^^Ode on the Death of the Dzike of IVellijzgton." 



28 



213 



214 

O anticipate, for the j)iirpose of making a 
point, Bothwell's enemies depict him — 
the Hereditary Lord Iligli Admiral of 
his native reahu, born in one of the 
grandest ancestral strongholds and cas- 
tellated mansions in Clydesdale ; the 
theme of the historian, the poet and the 
minstrel ; celebrated in the words of a ditty known during 
the Crusades, from the Atlantic to the Dead Sea, 
" Bothwell Bank thou bloomest fair" — 





Bothwell Castle on the Clyde. 



as dying a maniac in chains, in a loathsome Danish 
cell. This statement is founded on malice, forgery 
and ignorance. jSTotwithstanding all the efforts of indi- 
viduals and governments, of learning and industry, a 



215 

screen, as impenetrable as the "Veil of Isis," fell over the 
last years of "the great" "Scotland's proudest Earl." 
His principal advocate, Petrick, says, '■^ Then suddenly 
— (referring to the autnmn of 1571) — all is silent ! a 
great gap of four years occurs : — for what reason ?" There 
is a solution and a plausible one. For six years the 
Danish government "had been tormented by the demands 
of Queen Elizabeth [of England] and the [successive] Ke- 
gents of Scotland for the deliverance of Bothwell into 
their hands." Worn out with communications, reclama- 
tions and declamations, Frederic II. " allowed the report 
of Bothw^elPs death to be circulated, and so put an end to 
all the w^orry on the subject." This accounts for the 
doubts as to whether Bothwell died in 1575, according to 
Petrick, or in 1577 or 1578, according to Schiern and 
others. One sad fact is certain. He realized the words 
of the Prophet, Isaiah, xv., 9-10, in regard to the once 
mighty Belshazzar, "Thou shalt not be joined with them 
[thy forefathers and thy peers] in burial." Belted Earl 
and husband of a queen, his corpse rests in an unknown 
grave and foreign land. Bothwell, from the fall of 1567 
until his decease — wdienever it occurred — was "a prisoner 
of Hope" in the hands of Frederic II., King of Denmark. 
This monarch was a curious character. He was at once the 
protector of Bothwell and his custodian — whether at the 
last a severe or a lenient jailor nothing is definitely known. 
Falsehoods on the subject have been propagated industri- 



216 

oiisly, but notliing trustworthy. That Frederic allowed him, 
for years, pocket money, respectful attendance, company and 
corres2^ondence, and sufficient means to dress in accordance 
with his rank and enjoy good cheer is certai m. In I^ovember, 
1567, the king styles Both well " Our particular Favorite" 
(Shiern, 332). In January, 1568, Bothwell was living in Co- 
penhagen, without anxieties for the future. When transfer- 
red to Malmo, it was still a sort of honorable confinement. 
His apartment was stately for the time. Even after this, 



^t^ 







-^ 



down to 1571, velvet and silk were furnished for his attire, 
and his residence in Malmo, except as to duress, was any- 
thing but derogatory. He was purely a prisoner of State 
and of consideration. It was not until the 16th of June, 
1573, that he was transferred to Dragsholm. Even then, 
it is very doubtful if his confinement was as strict as repre- 



217 . 

sented. It is questionable if his treatment in Zealand was 
more rigorous or galling than that of Mary in England. 
According to inspiration, Jeremiah was promised again 
and again, as the recompense for his own unmerited suifer- 
ings, undergone in obedience to his call, that his life 
should be spared. "Thy life shall be as a 'prej unto 
thee; because thou hast put thy trust in me, saith the 
Lord." If life is a boon, and if the wise king was justified 
in saying, "A living dog is better than a dead lion" — in 
that while there is Life there is Hope — Bothwell was cer- 
tainly better off in comfort and safety in Penmark than 
either one of his enemies perishing in their prime and 
power by violent ends — deaths* culminating in horror with 
the burning alive at the stake of the Scottish Lion King 
at Arms ; sacrificed thus on his return to Scotland from 
his mission to Denmark to solicit the extradition of Both- 
well, because on the voyage home he had learned too much 
of the villainy of Murray and his associates. A moral 
lesson is conveyed by a time-table presenting the miserable 
and often horrible manner in which those who persecuted 
Bothwell went to their last account. It is very comfort- 



* It is more than remarkable how every one, of greater or lesser 
note, who persisted in aspiring to the hand of Mary, came to grief. 
The most extraordinary instance is that of Erik, King of Sweden, 
who, on hearsay evidence, became completely enamored of her, and 
made expensive preparations for a voyage to Scotland to prosecute his 
suit in person. Biit the fate of her other admirers came to him, and he 
ended his life, after many weary woeful years of imprisonment in a vile 
dungeon, by poison in a plate of pea-soui3. 



218 

ing to his friends and admirers to learn this. The author 
has derived the greatest satisfaction from the investigation 
of each successive terrible and untimely catastrophe. 

Extracts from Marrjat's "Jutland and the Danish Isles" 
[Vol. I., 408-19], appended as a I^oteto subsequent pages, 
will serve to present a mingling of fact and fable in regard to 
Bothwell's last imprisonment and sepulture, which is about 
as true as tradition^ generally is — that is to say, there 
is a basis of fact, but the superstructure is almost all fable. 



* Scarcely any man living has had opportunities more ample than 
the author to become acquainted with the untrustworthiness of popular 
tradition. In tracing back the history of a neighborhood it was pain- 
ful to observe the discrepancies manifested in the recollections of the 
"oldest inhabitant" in contiguous localities. "Memory is atten- 
tion," and it is seldom that individuals pay attention to anything that 
is not of immediate personal interest to themselves. All the passions 
and all the weaknesses influence memory. People hear what their 
elders gabble, then talk the matter over and garble it to suit them- 
selves, and transmit a tissue in which truth is like the Bean in a huge 
" Twelfth Cake." The bean is there, but a hundred slices may be cut 
before one reveals its presence. The author once sought out a road 
which, about seventy years since, was a main route between two fre- 
quented settlements, one a little port. A number had heard of it, a 
dozen pointed out depressions which indicated where it must have 
been located, but only one man could trace it. Why'/ In his youth he 
had worked upon it. No one but the author had ever thought it worthy 
of inquiry. The informant is extremely aged, the investigator is over 
sixty; in a few years both will have passed away, and after them every- 
thing in regard to the case in question will be mere surmise. So it is 
as to the last days of Bothwell. Horace Marryat advances as a 
proof that the corpse, which he claims to be Bothwell's, was really 
so — "a pearl embroidered cushion [pillow], a mark of rank," among 
the dead of the sixteenth century, "was found in the Scottish earl's 



219 

In permitting Botliwell to leave lier at Carberrj Hill — 
when the winning cards were still in her hands and retreat 
to Dunbar w^as by no means hopeless, nor even uncertain 
(Wiesener, 408)* — with reinforcements coming up, which 



coffin." Even this is apocryphal — mere report, as worthless as tra- 
dition ever turns out to be. As "belted Earl," as mighty Magnate, 
as Hereditary Lord High Admiral of a realm, as Lieutenant General 
and military Alter Ego of a sovereign, as her husband, he was "the 
observed of all observers !" 

" 'Tis ' great' to hear the passer by say. There he goes ! That's lie !" 
Greatness in a measure is proved when "the world is singling you out 
and indicating you." As a prisoner, in a foreign land, in a remote 
castle, on a sea-surrounded islet, Bothwell was buried alive, forgotten. 
* That Bothwell, with his acknowledged ability, could have eftected 
a retreat to Dunbar, a fortress impregnable to everything the Rebel 
Lords could have brought, or kept, together against it, which in itself 
alone would have insured ultimate success, is demonstrable by a hun- 
dred parallel operations. {Declaration of the Earl of Bothwell, ad- 
dressed to the King of Denmark. Agnes Strickland's " Lettei-sof Mary 
Queen of Scots," II., 324) .AH it required was military ability, coolness 
and intrepidity. He possessed all three (see pages 48-'9, supra). The 
Queen's Body Guard, of Hackbutteers, the men-at-arms of David Home 
of Wedderburn and of John of Blackadder, Bothwell's own Borderers 
and the three falconets (light field artillery) with their "constables, "would 
have been amply sufficient to cover a withdrawal of less than twenty 
miles, especially after impending night set in. The effect upon a fight, at 
this date, of a few trained musketeers, was almost incalculable. With a 
few efficient cavalry in support they could have turned this "Black" 
Sabbath into a bright Sunday. Witness the victory won, in a disadvant- 
ageous position on the Gelt, near Naworth Castle, in Cumberland, Eng- 
land, 19tli February, 1570, by Lord Hunsdon over Lord Dacre. The 
latter had 5,000 certainly as good troops as the "Bonded" Lords ; the 
former 1,500, but among these were the trained " Berwick harquebuss- 
men." The volleys of the latter staggered and demoralized the bold 
Dacre Borderers, horse and foot, and then Hunsdon fell on them with a 



220 

would have assured a victory to Mary, this determination 
of the Queen to separate her fortunes from her husband 
has always, and in some degree, justly been brought for- 



squadron of horse — such as those under Wedderburn and Blackadderat 
Carberiy Hill — and the rebel armament " went to water." To show 
the effect of coolness coupled with capacity, recall an incident in the 
life of Sir Andrew Murray of Botiiwell, son of the favorite colleague 
of Wallace, Regent of Scotland. " He was in the Highlands, in 1336, 
with a small body of followers, when the King of England came upon 
him with an army of twenty thousand. The Regent heard the news, 
but, being then about to hear mass, did not permit his devotions to be 
interrupted. When the mass was ended, the people around him pressed 
him to oi'der a retreat : ' There is no haste,' said Murray, composedly. 
At length his horse was brought out, he was about to mount, and all 
expected that the retreat was to commence. But the Regent observed 
that a strap of his armor had given way, and this interposed new de- 
lays. He sent for a particular coffer, out of which he took a jjiece of 
skin, and cut and formed with his own hand, and with much deliber- 
ation, the strap which he wanted. By this time, the English were draw- 
ing very near, and, as they were so many in number, some of the Scot- 
tish knights afterwards told the historian who narrates the incident, that 
no space of time ever seemed so long to them as that which Sir Andrew 
employed in cutting that thong of leather. Now, if this had been done 
in a mere vaunting or bragging manner, it would have been the be- 
haviour of a vain-glorious fool. But Sir Andrew Murray had already 
fixed upon the mode of his retreat, and he knew that every symptom 
of coolness and deliberation which he might show would render his men 
steady and composed in their turn, from beholding the confidence of 
their leader. He at length gave the word, and, jDutting himself at the^ 
head of his followers, made a most masterly retreat, during which the 
English, notwithstanding their numbers, were unable to obtain any 
advantage over him, so well did the Regent avail himself of the nature 
of the ground."' 

A parallel to this is the British General Crawford's coolness, 
during the Peninsular War, under Wellington, in Spain, in quietly 



221 

ward as an argument that she had ceased to love him, if 
she ever did care passionately for him.* Here once more 
Mary's principal biographer and advocate can be cited 
against herself and client, admitting (II., 83-'4) that the 
Queen could be "ungrateful and unreasonable," subject 
to "strange infatuations;" "had taken her resolution" — 
devoid of conmion sense, and blind and deaf to the les- 



stopping bis retreat to trice up and flog delinquents in face of the 
superior forces of the pursuing Fi'euch, pressing hard upon his 
rear guard, and so close upon him that spent shots sometimes fell 
among those present at the punishment. Sir Henry Clinton, the Royal 
Commander against the Colonies, 1777-82, owed his rise and rank to 
his successful retreat with a comparative handful], in the face of the 
French, during the "Seven Years' War" in Germany; and the same 
was the case with the noble Fraser, killed, under Burgoyne, in the Bat- 
tle of Bemis Heights or Second Saratoga, 7th October, 1777. Had he 
survived, and if Burgoyne had listened to his advice, the wrecks of the 
invading force might have been able to withdraw into Canada, under 
the cover of the famous Light Infantry, which Fraser knew how to 
handle so admirably. The military murder by Morgan's sharpshooters 
forbade the experiment. Lord Clive, one of the greatest born-generals 
who ever illustrated the Annals of War, gained all his successes in 
India — such as Arcot, Arnee, Cowerepauk, Seviavaram, Plassey, &c. — 
victories which laid the basis of the vast dominion of Great Britain in 
that Asian peninsula — against greater odds than Bothwell had to con- 
tend with, even after his Militia — Temporary or Feudal Levies — had 
failed him and flunked. 

*Mary "was impulsive, hot-headed, warm-hearted, and in her 
virtues and her faults essentially a woman. She fell over head and 
ears in love with Bothwell, and, as is often the case when this occurs 
to a woman, allowed her individuality to be absorbed in his, and became 
for a time a mere tool in his hands. With the exception of this episode, 
she conducted herself very properly." ("Mary and Elizabeth," in 
Truth, London, Thursday, 11th January, 1883.) 
29 



222 

sons of experience — "before she asked advice." If slie 
had only shown a small portion of the energy she displayed 
eight months before, when, in the rongh antumn weather, 
through a diflficult country, and dangerous population, she 
rode on horseback fifty miles, thither from Jedburgh and 
back to visit her lover, previously wounded in her service, 
in Hermitage Castle — his headquarters as Warden of the 




Hermitage Castle. 

Marches, (see article "Jedburgh Abbey," Saturday 
Review^ 30th September, 1882, page 439), Carberry Hill 
would have been a decisive triumph, instead of a dis- 
astrous and disgraceful catastrojDlie. It was simply 
the effect of cause ; the inevitable quantities uniting 
in the product : Ate and Fate ! If readers would study 



223 

the most flattering stories of her friends in the light 
of reason, not feeling, they wonld find enough therein, to 
condemn their heroine and absolve Both well. Fronde's 
(YII., 369) exposition of her character is masterly, and its 
correctness is established more and more by comparison 
and investigation. If this stood alone there w-ould be 
difficulty in meeting it.* 

Rarely, perhaps, has any woman combined in herself so 
many noticeable qualities as Mary Stuart; with a feminine in- 
sight into men and things and human life, she had cultivated 
herself to that high perfection in v/hich accomplishments were 
no longer advantitious ornaments, but were wrought into her 
organic constitution. Though luxurious in her ordinary habits, 
she could share in the hard field-life of the ln;ntsman or the soldier 
with gracefid cheerfulness; she had vigor, energy, tenacity of 
purpose, with perfect and never-failing self-possession (?) and, as 
the one indispensable foundation for the effective use of all 
other qualities, she had indomitable courage. She wanted none 
either of the foculties necessary to conceive a great purpose, or 
of the abilities necessary to execute it, except, perhaps, only 
this— that while she made politics the game of her life, it was 



* To show how fallible, after all, Agnes Strickland — the accepted 
biographer par excellence of Mary, Queen of Scots — proves herself to 
be, page 119, Note l,Vol. III., of her "Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots," 
she states that Bothwell was the author [of the French translation] of 
the Latin Libel (upon Mary) of Buchanan, styled his '■'Detectioy Such 
a mistake is not only wicked, inexcusable and absurd, but not more so 
than many of the epithets Miss Strickland applies to Bothwell and her 
inconsistent remarks upon him. When this " Detectio'''' appeared, 
Bothwell was already a captive in Denmark, and no one charges him, 
after that period, with any reflection upon his ill-fated but false consort. 



224 

a game only [like the battles of Pyrrhus], though played for a 
high stake. In the deeper and nobler emotions she had neither 
share nor sympathy . Here lay the vital difference of character 
between the Queen of Scots and her great rival, and here was 
the secret of the difference of their fortunes. In intellectual 
gifts Mary Stuart was at least Elizabeth's equal ; and Anne 
Boleyn's daughter, as she said herself, was " no angel." But 
Elizabeth could feel like a man an unselfish interest in a great 
cause ; Mary Stuart was ever her oicn centre of hope^ fear or 
interest. She thought of nothing., cared for nothing^ exceptt as 
linked vjith the gratification of some ambition., some desire, 
some humor of her own, and thus Elizabeth was able to over- 
come temptations before Avhich Mary fell. * * While her 
sister of England was trifling with an affection for which foolish 
is too light an epithet, Mary Stuart, when scarcel}^ more than a 
girl, was about to throw herself alone into the midst of the 
most turbulent people in Europe, fresh emerged out of revolu- 
tion, and loitering in the veiy rear of civilization ; she going 
among them to use her charms as a spell to win them back to 
the Catholic Church, to weave the fibres of a conspiracy from 
the Orkneys to the Lands End; prepared to wait, to control 
herself, to hide her purpose till the moment came to strike, yet 
with a purpose fixed as the stars to trample down the Reform- 
ation, and to seat herself at last on Elizabeth's throne. 

" "Whatever policy," said Randolph of her, " is in all the 
chief and best-practiced heads in France, whatever craft, false- 
hood or deceit is in all the subtle brains of Scotland, is either 
fresh in this Avoman's memory or she can fette it with a wet 
finger." (Froude, VII., 369.) 

She was deluded by Kirkaldy, as she had often been 
before by Murray ; but her first act, after she discovered the 



225 

awful mistake she had made in disregarding her husband's 
counsels, was to write to him, and send him a purse or 
sum of gold. She again wrote to him from Lochleven ; 
she refused to separate her fortunes from his ; her thoughts 
dwelt constantly upon him ; and the very night of her 
escape from Lochleven, "while the men were stretching 
their aching legs, Mary Stuart was writing letters." To 
whom ? To her uncle, the Cardinal of Lorraine, in Paris, 
for assistance, and to her lover and husband, Bothwell. 
She sent the Laird of Ricarton, a kinsman of Bothwell, 
to raise the Hepburns, united to the "great Earl" by 
family and feudal ties, and make a dash on Dunbar to 
secure a port for the arrival of himself and of succor from 
France, and, when that port of entry was secured, to go on 
to Bothwell and tell him that she was free. Bothwell 
himself wrote to Frederic that he M^as on his way to 
Scotland, to raise men and money, when he was "treach- 
erously captured" in Carmo-sund. Ricarton did "go 
on," and found Bothwell in his confinement at Mal- 
mo. Another account says, as soon as she breathed the 
air of freedom, she despatched a messenger to find Both- 
well, wherever he might be, and announce the happy tid- 
ings of her release, and summon him to her side, whence 
he never should have been permitted, for her security and 
honor, to depart. Agnes Strickland, color blind as to 
every shade which could relieve or glorify the portrait of 
Bothwell, says that on her flight from Langside, Lord 



226 

Herries wanted Mary to take refuge in Earlston Castle, a 
stronghold belonging to Both well ; that Mary became 
greatly agitated, burst into tears, and refused, "as if 
fearing to encounter her evil genius in his form, and pre- 
fering to brave any other peril than that of meeting him 
again." This is a puerile idea, and unworthy anything 
but the pen of a woman fighting to rehabilitate one of her 
sex, and, in so doing, so bitterly prejudiced as to foi'get the 
very characteristics of a such peculiar specimen of her sex 
as Mary. Consistent with their nature, it is likely Mary's 
love for Eothwell was so strong in her bosom, that she 
could not bear to tread the halls without him that once 
she had trodden with him in happier days. There is no 
greater "sufiering" — exclaims Dante — "than to recall 
past happiness amid present wretchedness." Finally, to 
demonstrate the fallacy, if not wickedness, of all this mis- 
representation of Mary's feelings for Bothwell to screen 
and excuse the Queen, even as late as the spring of 1571, 
when she was at Sheffield, she was in correspondence with 
him in Malnjo, and had written, herself, to Frederic II., 
entreating him not to listen to the pursiiasion of the 
Scottish envoy, Buchanan, laboring with so much enmity 
and earnestness against her husband. The correspondence 
must have been patent, for Buchanan told Cecil that, "if 
he took the trouble, he might intercept some of her letters." 
That Lord Boyd, in 1569, obtained Bothwell's consent 
to the dissolution of his marriage, to enable Mary to marry 



227 

ISTorfolk, shows that the intercourse between the Earl and 
Queen, by letter and messenger, was still permitted. The 
fact is, Frederic's whole treatment of Bothwell was regu- 
lated by the probabilities of Mary's restoration to her 
throne. It was not until her case seemed desperate that 
Bothwell was finally immured, if he was ever actually 
thrown into a dungeon, which is very questionable. 

What became of Bothwell after they parted, forever 
on earth, at Carberry Hill, Sunday, 15th June, 1567, is 
soon told. He returned unmolested to Dunbar, and re- 
mained there for several weeks undisturbed, although he 
did not confine himself to the fortress, but cruised about 
in the Frith of Forth, even penetrating beyond Edinburgh 
to the neighborhood of Linlithgow, to hold a meeting with 
Lord Claude Hamilton. Of his political projects at this 
time no record remains. Confiding the defence of Dunbar 
to his kinsman. Sir Patrick Whitlaw, he sailed thence, in 
the beginning of July, with two light vessels, and steered 
northward to visit his brother-in-law, Huntley, at Strath- 
bogie Castle, about ten miles south-by-west of Banff, to 
the eastward of the Moray Frith. His intention was, 
doubtless, to raise forces in the northeast and rencM^ the 
struggle. The Queen had many friends in that quarter ; 
adherents who did join her after her escape from Loch- 
leven, next year, 1568, and fought for her at Langside. 
Thence he proceeded to Spynie Castle, just north of Elgin, 
the residence of his aged great-uncle, Patrick Hep- 



228 

burn, Bisliop of Murray, by whom he was brought up. 
Here a project was entertained to murder Bothwell, and 
a proposition to this effect was made to the English 
ambassador, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, at Edinburgh. 
Whether the offer was rejected from policy or morality 
is not clearly shown. Some difficulty occurred, and Both- 
well is charged with having slain one of his illegitimate 
cousins, who, in conjunction with two Rokebys, English 
spies incited by greed, were plotting against him. The 
latter even offered to kill the Bishop as well as the Earl. 
Throckmorton seems to have objected to such a summary 
proceeding, because no advantage could be derived from 
the crime in favor of England and Elizabeth. 

Bothwell now determined to visit his dukedom of the 
Orkneys, and sailed for the chief town of the group, 
Kirkwall. The opinion of those who have investigated 
the matter with most attention is that Botliwell — after his 
failure to enlist the active co-operation of his brother-in-law, 
Huntley — intended to proceed to the Orkneys, gather what 
strength he could, and then, by the way of Sweden, pro- 
ceed to France to arouse the sympathies of Charles IX. — 
who, personally, was very friendly to him, and had con- 
fidence in the Earl based on his service as "Chamber- 
lain" at one time, and as "Captain of the Royal Scottish 
Body Guard," at another, — and derive from France, not 
only "the sinews of war," money, but actual military 
assistance. Fate, however, traversed all Bothwell' s bold 



229 

projects, and, at Kirkwall, lie was received with the treach- 
ery he had alwaj^s experienced from those he had bene- 
fited. His castellan, Gilbert Balfour, brother of Sir James 
Balfour, w^ho had betrayed him after his marriage, and 
delivered up Edinburgh Castle to the Rebels — both accom- 
plices in the murder of Darnley — turned the cannons of 
the place upon his feudal lord and benefactor. In conse- 
quence of this, Bothwell remained only two days in the 
port of Kirkwall, and then sailed northward to the Shet- 
lands. Here he met wath better treatment. The Bail- 
iii, Oiaf Sinclair, was a kinsman of the Earl's (now^ Duke) 
mother, Jane Sinclair. Olaf received him kindly, and 
the people furnished him supplies — a gratuity wdiich was 
afterwards made the excuse for an onerous tax. Mean- 
while, 19th August, Kirkaldy of Grange, Murray of Tul- 
libardine and the Bishop of Orkney, who had married 
Mary to Bothwell, sailed from Dundee with four ships of 
war, the best in Scotland, which, in addition to the sea- 
men, carried four hundred picked arquebusiers (mus- 
keteers) as marines. The three commanders had authority 
to bring BotliM^eli, if taken, to a summary trial, and exe- 
cute him. On the 25th August, 1567, the four pursuing 
ships sailed into Bressay Sound, on the shore of which 
stands Lerwick, the principal town of the Shetland group. 
At this date. Both well's squadron consisted of four small 
vessels, two of which he had brought from Dunbar, and 
two Hanseatic armed Pinks, "two-masted lesser war 
30 



230 

ships," which he had hired at Sumburgh Head. One of 
these was named the "Pelican." Unconscious of danger, 
Both well's ships lay at anchor, and a large portion of 
their crews were on shore. Bothwell, himself, at the time 
was a guest of the Bailiff, Olaf Sinclair. Those in com- 
mand who had remained on board, cut their cables and 
put to sea, and made their way to Unst, the most north- 
erly of the Shetlands. In his pursuit, Ivircaldy ran his 
flagship, the "Unicorn," on a rock, and it M^ent down. 
Bothwell, meanwhile, made his way by land to the Yell 
Sound, and thence by w^ater to Unst, where he rejoined 
his ships. Thence he sent back one vessel to pick ujd his 
men who had been left on shore. With the other three 
he w^as overtaken, in the last days of August, by Kircaldy 
with his three remaining ships of w^T,r. A hard fight en- 
sued, which lasted for many hours. In the course of it 
the mainmast of Bothwell' s best ship was carried away 
by a cannon shot, and the south-west Mnnd swelling into a 
fierce gale j^ut an end to the conflict by dispersing the 
combatants. The Earl was driven with two of his vessels 
out into the Xorth Atlantic, and one was captured. Run- 
ning south-east-by-east before the quartering gale, Both- 
well soon traversed the 250 miles of ocean which separated 
the Shetlands from J^orway, and first made the Island of 
Carmoe, twenty miles north-west of Stavanger, and was 
piloted into the quiet waters of Carm or Carmoe Sound. 
The ships had scarcely cast anchor when the Dano-Nor- 



231 

wegian ship-of-war " Bjoriien," Captain Christern Aal- 
borg, made its appearance. By this Aalborg, Bothwell 
was " treacherously captured, " and carried into the port 
of Bergen. There his case was investigated by a commis- 
sion or jury, composed of four-and-twenty principal men of 
the town, of which the foreman was Dr. Jens Skelderup, 
Bishop of Bergen. (Gaedeke, 396.) By them he was fully 
acquitted of the charge of "piracy," with which his ene- 
mies had and have so consistently and falsely branded him. 
There is not the slightest basis for such a charge. This 
was about 2d September, 1567. After this, the Governor 
of Bergen Castle showed Bothwell great honor, and gave 
him a magnificent banquet. The Earl always mentions 
this governor with favor, and styles him "that good lord 
Erik Bosenkrands." Nevertheless, however courteously 
treated, Bothwell was, in fact, a prisoner, and when Cap- 
tain Aalborg sailed from Bergen, 30th September, for Co- 
penhagen, he carried Bothwell and some of his people with 
him. In the author's " Vindication " of Bothwell, he has 
furnished the dry details of the Earl's detention in Den- 
mark, of which the following is the summary : The king, 
Frederic II., would not consent to the extradition of Both- 
well at the urgent requests either of the usurping Scottish 
government or of Queen Elizabeth, nor would he let him go 
free. Comparing lesser things with grander, it was exactly 
the case of "The great Apostle" and the Koman Gov- 
ernor — "and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, 



232 

left Paul bomid." Frederic II. and Bothwell never met, 
but corresponded. In a letter, dated 18tli November, 
1567, tlie King designated Botliwell as "Our particular 
Favorite," and tlie Earl is syled in the correspondence, 
"the Scottish King," On receiving Bothwell's statement, 
Frederic allowed him to remain at Copenhagen, supply- 
ing him with apparel suitable to his i-ank and liberal 
entertainment. 

In January, 1568, when the pressure of the Scotch 
regency became stronger, Bothwell was transferred to 
Malmo Castle* — then in Denmark, now in Sweden — on the 



* " Malmo. — Soon clmrch-towers arise in tlie distance, shipping, 
and a harbor ; to the right stands a grim old castle, with staircase — 
gable and high-jiitched roof, encircled by moat and bastion — once the 
prison of Scotland's proudest earl, the bad and reckless Bothwell. [See 
engraving, Malmo-huus, page 316.] 

" An ancient plan of Malmohus is preserved in the archives of the 
Radhus, by refering to which we discover the 'corps de logis' to be 
the original palace of King Frederik II.'s time ; the remaining build- 
ings were added by Christian IV., as is testified by his cypher, en- 
twined with that of his queen, Anna Catherine, A. K. 1608. * * 
But, before searching out his prison, we must first turn to the story of 
Bothwell himself, according to the records (some sixty-eight in number) 
which still exist in the Royal Archives of Copenhagen. In the autumn 
of the year, 1567, Bothwell arrived at Copenhagen, where we find him, 
about the latter end of December, a prisoner in the king's palace. 

" Frederik was at that time absent from the capital, hunting at 
Frederiksborg, from whence he issued the following order to Biorn 
Kaas, the Seneschal of Malmo : 

" Frederik, &c. Be it known to you that we have ordered our well- 
beloved Peter Oxe, our man, councillor and marshal of the kingdom of 
Denmark, to send the Scottish earl, who resides in the castle of Copen- 
hagen, over to our castle of Malmo, where he is to remain for some 



233 



northern shore of the Sound, about opposite Copenhagen. 
As the greater part of this castle was subsequently des- 
troyed by fire, or "submerged in the stormy waves," 



time. We request of you, therefore, to have prepared that same vaulted 
room in the castle where the Marshal, Eyler Hardenberg, had his apart- 
ment, and to cover over with mason-work the private place in the same 
chamber; and, where the iron bars of the windows may not be suffi- 
ciently strong and well guarded, that you will have them repaired ; 
and when he arrives, that you will put him into the said chamber, 
give him beds and good eritertainment, as Peter Oxe will further direct 
and advise you ; and that you will, above all things, keep a strong 
guard, and hold in good security the said earl, as you may best devise, 
that he may not escape. Such is our will. 

" Written at Frederiksborg, 38th December, 1567." * * 

" We entered the square court of the castle, and * * inquired 
whether there still existed any ' vaulted rooms ' in the building of King 
Frederik II. time. In reply, we were informed that there were two large 
vaulted chambers on the ground floor, to one of which was attached a 
small square cabinet, scooped out in the thickness of the castle wall, 
towards the moat side. An exterior flight of steps led us to the entry 
of the chamber in which there is every reason to suppose that Both- 
well passed some five years — may be the most tranquil of his unquiet 
life. It is a lofty, oblong, vaulted room, some thirty feet in length, 
lighted by strongly-barred windows looking on the court. On opening 
the door of the square closet, the floor was still covered over with 
mason-work of a blackish stone, well-worn, and polished by the friction 
of ages — that long narrow pavement so generally used in buildings of 
the sixteenth century. We quitted the castle perfectly satisfied that 
we had found the ' vaulted chamber' we had come in search of — the 
state-room of early days, in which the husband of Scotland's queen, 
Frederik II.'s own kinswoman, was ordered to receive 'good treat- 
ment.'' On the head of Bothwell, as on that of Mary, rested a fearful 
accusation — that of murder — an accusation which Frederik II. was 
reluctant to credit, as he writes word in his letter to the infant James, 
then eighteen months old, in answer to an epistle penned by the hand 



234 

there is no certainty as to what portion was assigned as 
an abode for "the most distinguished state prisoner of 
Frederic II." It is supposed that he was located in a 



of Murray. The Danish sovereign refused to receive Bothwell into his 
presence ; but, thougli he ordered him to be kept a prisoner, he wished 
Mm to enjoy all the comforts and luxuries due to Ms rank and position, 
EVERYTHING SAVE LIBERTY, ' until his case could have better consider- 
ation.' Of the doings of Bothwell during his residence at Malmdhus, 
we know but little. Two days after his arrival (30th December, 1567 
[10th January, 1568?] ) Peter Oxe writes from Copenhagen to the king 
to say that the Scottish earl desires to obtain a loan of 200 specie (£40), 
and to ask whether or not he shall advance it on the king's account ; and 
later, in a MS. register of expenses in the Royal Archives, is pre- 
served a statement, dated 2d March, A. D. 1569, which runs as follows : 
' Likewise delivered to Bicm Kaas, our man, councillor, and seneschal, 
at our castle of Malmo ; according to order from our high steward 
aforesaid, English velvet and silk for 75 sp. 6 sk. (£15), of which we have 
made a present to the Scottish earl, who is imprisoned there.' It was 
during his imprisonment in Malmohus that Bothwell composed that 
narrative of the leading events which terminated in his flight from 
Scotland, in 1567, as well as of his subsequent adventures, known by 
the title of ' Les Affaires du Comte de Boduel,' forwarded by him to 
the Danish sovereign. The MS., entitled 'Les Affaires du Comte de 
Boduel,' now in the library of Stockholm, is a copy of the original 
in the handwriting of Dantzay, followed up by his own corres- 
pondence with the French king. Bothwell concludes his narra- 
tive in the following words: ' Cet ecrit une je prye estre delivre a sa 
Majeste a fin qu 'elle congnosse I'intention et finale voloute de la Royne 
Madame Marie qui estoit tellelment que je deborois demander a la 
Majeste de Dannemarch comme allie et coufedere de ladite Royne ayde 
faveur et adsistance tant de geus de guerre que de navires pour la de- 
livrer de la captivite ou elle est.' Lucky had it been for Frederik II. 
had Bothwell never set his foot on Danish ground, for never was poten- 
tate more tormented. First came monthly demands : vehement, and 
later even violent, from the Earl of Murray, for the handing over of 



235 

spacious apartment previously assigned to the governor — 
a large, oblong, vaulted hall, with windows to the south 
looking out upon the grand panorama of the Sound, re- 



the earl's person to his custody for capital punishment, with even hints 
of a little previous wholesome torture, such as boot, maiden, or some- 
thing worse. Our Virgin Queen, too, dictated four letters on the sub- 
ject to the Danish King, written in a pretty Italian hand, supposed to 
be that of Ascham, to not one of which did Frederik (wise man) deign 
a reply, at which neglect Elizabeth expressed herself much wounded, 
though in one of them, by way of a sop, she adds with her own royal 
pen, " Vestra bona soror et consanguinea." But she got no Bothwell 
all the same. Then Catherine de Medicis was sure to write, at least 
once a month, to her envoy, Charles de Dantzay, ' to insist that Both- 
well should not be given over to the Scotch.' As to Frederik himself, 
worried out of his senses, he was not at all inclined to deliver up 
his prisoner, and that for certain reasons of his own ; for Bothwell, 
in a letter dated 13th January (1568), had offered, if the king would 
procure ' la deliverance de Madame Marie la Reyne sa Princesse,' to 
cede to him the Orkney and Shetland Isles, a regretted appanage, long 
since severed from the Danish crown.* 

" As matters stood, therefore, it was perhaps as w*;ll to bear the 
worry, and see what might turn up later. So he unburdens his mind 
by writing to the German princes, his relations, explaining to them 
what he has done, why he has so acted, and asking their advice ; albeit, 
at the same time determined to follow his own inclination, whatever 
their answer might be. In the meantime Bothwell goes on drinking, 
carousing and receiving the visits of his Scotch friends, snapping his 
fingers at Queen Elizabeth and the Scottish peers, until the 16th of June 
(1573), when he is suddenly removed to the castle of Draxholm, in the 



* " Pour les frais qui y pourroyent estre faicts que je fisse offre a 
ladite Majeste de vandre les Isles d'Orquenay et de Schetland libres et 
quittes sans aucune empeschement a la couronne de Dannemarch et 
de Norwegue comme ils avoyent cydevant quelque tems este. 

"Presente a Helsingbourg an S. Peter Oxe et S. Jehan Fris Chan- 
celier, le 16th Janvier, 1568." 



236 

motely to the west on the Island Hven, the residence of 
Tycho Brahe ; nearer, on the Island of Salthom opposite, 
and Amager beyond, in fact, the whole interesting and 



island of Zealand. On the 28th of June following, Dantzay writes to his 
master, the King of France : ' Le Roy de Danemarck avoit iusques a 
piTt assez bien entretenu le Conte Baudouel, mais depuis pen de jours 
il I'a faut mettre en une fort maulvaise et estroite prison.' In addition 
to the testimony of Dantzay, the following entry has been lately dis- 
covered in a MS. of Karem Brahe, preserved in the library of Odense : 
'In the year 1573, on the 16th of June, was the Scottish earl placed at 
Draxholm.' Scarce had the prisoner been removed when, on the 26th 
day of the same month, arrives a letter from the new Regen t, Morton, de- 
manding the deliverance of ' Damnatae memoriee parricidam nostram,' 
as he terms Bothwell, which, considering he had been himself a party 
to the murder of Darnley, is strong language, and with this epistle ter- 
minates the correspondence, for on the 24th of November following, 
Dantzay, after first announcing ' Au Roy — Sr Peter Oxe mourut le 24 
jour d'Octobre,' continues, ' le Comte de Baudouel, Ecossais, est aussi 
decede,' and this report of the Earl's death was believed by Mary her- 
self, and generally credited throughout the whole of Europe, at the very 
time he was languishing in a damp unwholesome prison (?) of the 
Castle of Draxholm. It may be inferred that Frederik had been per- 
suaded by his new Minister, Walkendorf, a man not over-sci"upulous as 
to truth, to announce the death of his illustrious prisoner as the best 
answer to all the reiterated demands for his person, and thus putting 
an end to the vexed aflair for ever. From this date we hear no more 
of the Earl, until the record of his death on the 14th April, 1578 (?), and 
liis subsequent interment in the church of Faarveile. * * What 
was the cause of this sudden change in the treatment of the Scottish 
earl, so well entertained by the King of Denmark for the space of five 
years? The Protestants, and those who were hostile to Queen Mary's 
cause, will tell you that from the year 1572, after the massacre of St. 
Bartholomew, the feelings of the Lutheran ruler of the realm under- 
went a change towards his Roman Catholic kinswoman, and that Both- 
well to him was naught save the husband of Mary. The Roman 



237 

lively en^^l•ollS of the Danish capital not farther distant than 
from ten to twenty miles. Meanwhile the King took care 
that his food and clothes should be rich and ample. "He 

Catholics on their side assert, and that strenuously, the story of his 
confession to be true, in which lie 'malade a I'extremite au chateau de 
Malmay, declared la Royne iuuocente de la ditte mort — lui seul ses 
parens et quelque noblesse autours d'icelle.' The confession of Both- 
well, printed by Drummond of Hawthornden, 1625, has disappeared, as 
well as the other copies known to have existed former]y(?). The Danish 
archives lend no aid to the solution of the mystery. Frederik may 
have forwarded the original to Queen Elizabeth, the paper she ' kept 
quiet,' but uiJ to the lyresent time the jvoofs are wanting, and all is doubt 
and obscurity. How Malcolm Laiug can assert these names are appa- 
rently tictitious is surprising. In olden times Malmd, before ortho- 
graphy was settled, was written Malmoye, Malmoge as well as Malmay : 
all these terminations being different dialects of the word o or ey island 
Malm, sand (Moeso-Gothic) — «^ (island) being the real signification of the 
name. The Skane nobles were men of note and position, possessors 
of the lands and castles alluded to, lansmen and governors of fortresses 
and districts. The spelling of their names in Queen Mary's letter dif- 
fers from that of the documents preserved in the Scottish College at 
Paris, but this is not to be wondered at. I myself, in the 19th century, 
after two years' familiarity with the Danish language, should be sadly 
at a loss to write them down correctly from dictation. Though old 
Otto Brahe, father of the illustrious Tycho, was at that time gathered 
to his ancestors, yet the provinceof Skane was peopled by his descend- 
ants. But argue as you may — ^well or ill— until the missing document 
be forthcoming all will be vexatiou of spirit — so let the matter rest, and 
each man hold to his own opinion. 

" There is nothing more to relate, so let us bid adieu to the vaulted 
chamber in the degraded fortress of old Malmo-huus, once a prison, far 
too good and spacious for the most restless adventurer of his age, the 
husband of Queen Mary — James Erie Boithuille."— " One Year in 
Sweden," Vol. I., pages 3-20, by Horace Marryat. From the de 
Peyster Collection, in the New York Society Library. 
31 



238 

was detained there [JVIalmo] as a State prisoner, indeed, 
but led a Inxurions life, and was treated far better than he 
deserved, being allowed the liberty of shooting and other 
recreations, while the King of Denmark ordered and paid 
for velvet dresses and other costly array for his use." 
When those " Titans of fraud " and crime, the Scottish 
authorities, empowered Colonel {^Ohrlst or Oherst) and 
Captain John Clark, a Scottish mercenary — nominally 
commanding, in 1564, 206 Scottish cavalry soldiers in 
the service of Denmark — to demand the extradition of 
Bothwell, Bothwell turned the tables upon Clai-k by shoM'- 
ing that when the Danish government sent Clark over to 
Scotland, in 1567, to enlist troops for its service, this 
agent was induced to expend the money entrusted to him 
for that special purpose for the benefit of the "Bonded" 
Lords in rebellion against Queen Mary and Bothwell, 
and actually inarshalled the soldiers, mustered in to serve 
Frederic, to fight against the Queen at Carberry Hill. 
Clark was sent before a court-martial, and, in spite of the 
remonstrances of Elizabeth and Murray, was found guilty, 
consigned to the same castle, Dragsholm, that eventually 
received Bothwell within its dragon ward, and died there, 
a prisoner, before his intended, victim. 

After this afi*air of Clark (1568-70), Frederic II. re- 
laxed the restraint on the Earl, and he was allowed full 
liberty within the precincts of the castle ; nay more, he 
"was allowed no small liberty in Malmo," dressing in 



239 

velvet and silk, and leading a tranquil, and by no means 
an unhappy life. In fact, except that he was not free 
(Wiesener, 505), "his life was that of a brilliant lord;" 
an existence far happier, perhaps, and certainly more com- 
fortable than that of the majority of jjotentates at this 
era. At a later date, it is said. Captain Clark became 
reconciled with Bothwell in Dragsholm, and together they 
drowned their cares and ennui in wine. This kind of liv- 
ing killed Clark in July, 1575, and seriously injured the 
health of Bothwell. 




•'i;bi5» 




All upon a summer sea 
Sailing in an argosy — 

Rebecs, lutes and viols sounding. 

While the ship o"er wavelets hounding. 
Skims the surface of the sea. 

***** 
Stealing down a gloomy river. 
Where dull water-grasses quiver. 

From a barque come sounds of sorrow, 

Never ceasing with the morrow — 
Mournful barque upon the river. 



Sullen clouds obscure the moon. 

Darkness cometh all too soon ! 

Black the clouds and black the river. 
Black the barq'ue, and oh ! the shiver 

As it sinks beneath the moon ! — The Argosy. 



Act V. Scene Last. (Abbreviated.") 
[Carberrv Hill. A knoll, whence the prospect e.xtends to the westward and north- 
ward, looking over the nearer lines of the Queen's forces, and towards those, beyond. 
of the Confederate Lords. In the immediate rear stand three pieces of artillery, 
pointed at the latter, with a few '"Constables" in charge : of whom one, assigned to 
each gun, at intervals waves his linstock to keep the slow-match alight and ready for 
immediate use. Near these are groups of royal regular Hackbutteers, belonging to the 
Queen's body-guard, at ease, and parties of Border noblemen and their retainers, Jack- 
men, evidently as if just dismounted, and leaning on their long spears. In the front 
centre are Mary Stuart and Bothwell : and, to the right, but withdrawn a space, 
Kirkaldy of Grange. Behind the Queen is Captain Blackadder. one of Bothwell's 
subordinates, watching what is occurring in the enemy's ranks, and his remarks serve 
as an e.xplanation or Cho7-us^\ 

Blackadder. \_To BothiveU.] 

Hasten, my Lord, your colloquy : the foe 

Are striving to outflank us. Look, their horse 

To close the road to Dunbar, headlong spur. 

If fight 's the word, now is the time to fight. 

Lest we both lose advantage of the sun 

Full in their faces ; our position too ; 

And worst, if beaten, our retreat "s cut oft'. 

240 



241 

Marv. [Continuing a conversation which had been going 
on before the scene opened. | 
I am resolv'd to trust Kirkaldy — 

BOTHWELL. Ah ! 

What glamour blinds thee, love ? Thou know'st him not ; 
The hireling spy and England's traitrous tool. 
He but deceives thee, with his specious tale ; 
His boasted chivalry is mere lacker. 
Beneath the semblance of the golden truth 
Is falsehood's foul and cheap-jack metal. Think » 

Ere you commit your fortune to such crew. 
[Bothwell breaks off suddenly, rushes to a Hackbutteer and, by signs and words inaudible 
to the spectators, directs hiirf to shoot Kirkaldy, who, shading his eyes against the 
declining sun, is looking in a different direction towards his own friends. Mary, 
moved by Bothwell's charges, seems lost for a moment in deep thought ; then suddenly 
perceives Bothwell's intention and throws herself between the musketeer and his aim. J 

Mary. What would'st thou do ? 

Bothwell, Slay the deceiving villain 

By whom you are infatuated, 

Mary. James, 

He "s under safeguard of my queenly word. 
And, though he were the very knave thou say'st, 
He must not die by an assassin shot. 

Bothwell. [With difficulty restraining himself, and 
making a gesture to the musketeer to " recover 
arms," returns to the Queen's side.] 
My love, my queen, my sweetheart and my life. 
Thy noble nature and thy native sense 
Are both the victims of this knave's device. 
Is it not better, here upon this field. 
To strike one blow for honor and thy crown 
Than thus abase thyself to traitors — yield 

Thy freedom, and perchance thy life, to those . j 

Who never yet have kept a single Bond 
Beyond the signing, had their purposes 
But borne their fruit perfidious. Hast thou not 
Prov'd me, as never yet woman prov'd man 
Or had the chance to do 't ? Have I not shown. 
By ev'ry thought, word, act, since manhood's dawn, 
That Truth and Bothwell were synonymous ? 
" Klip Trest ! " my motto — emblem of my life. 
Was I not faithful to my mother ; then 
With equal truth did I not turn to thee : 
Until thy love, enkindled at my own. 
Or my big love, inflam'd by thy bright eyes, 
Converted me from loyalty to Jove ? 
Have I e'er fail'd thee? Have I not been truth, 
Love, faith, devotion : all thy sex can ask ? 
And yet thou dost not trust me ; but prefer'st 
The specious promise of a hireling tongue ! 

Mary. I am lesolv'd to trust the Bonded Lords; 
Not, that I have lost faith in thee, mine own, 
But cause 't would seem as if by Fate impell'd, 
This is the wisest course and fits the time. 
A brief, sad parting and a better meeting 
May bring again a long and halcyon term. 



242 

BoTHWELL. No, no ! No, no ! I tell thee. No ! 'T would seem 
As if, on board a stout still lusty frigate, 
Because 't is slightly shatter'd by a squall. 
Thou would'st abandon ship and practic'd captain , 
To trust a pirate's skiff to save from storm 
That lowers, but has not burst. Oh ! Mary, 
Dost thou love me ? 

Mary. My acts are the best answer. 
I have gone through too much for thee to doubt it. 
• Oh, what have I not done to prove my love ? {^Wringing her hands.'] 

Oh, what have I not suffer'd to be thine ? 

BoTHWELL. Then, by the tie united us when twain. 
And by the two church rites that made us one, 
I do conjure thee, let me fight this day : 
Not like a felon bid me steal away, 
^ever before has Bothwell quit the field, 
But all victorious or upon his shield. 
[Bothwell takes Mary's hand in his, and they stand thus, grasping each others hands, for 
some minutes ; then clasp each other in a sad but fierce embrace. He glues his lips to 
hers, then suddenly releases her, and, gazing, seems to discern that neither kisses 
nor caresses have changed her resolution. His eyes question her.] 

Marv. [Suddenly. 1 I am resolv'd to keep my word to Grange 
Bothwell. Oh, love ! my life ! 

Mary. {^Wiih a sad S7nilej\ Alas! we here must part; 
Part for a time, assur'd of future meeting. 

Bothwell. Wilt thou be true to me, and keep thy promise, 
So often seal'd with kisses, e'en beside 
The dead man's corse ; to ne'er even in thought, 
Nor word, nor bond, nor deed, annul nor weaken it ; 
Be my own Mary, till the whelming sea 
Or the cold earth put seal to either life ? 

Mary. I promise. Go ! Before it is too late, 
Take horse for Dunbar, ere the foeman's horse 
Cut in and make escape impossible. 

Bothwell. \\Vith desperation.'] Will you not fight, 

or let us fight ? 
Mary. Too late ! 

[Bothwell seizes her in his arms and kisses her wildly ; but, seeing that even in this supreme 
moment she makes a motion for Kirkaldy to approach, he suddenly releases her and 
strides to the left of the stage ; then turns, and perceives that Kirkaldy has drawn 
nearer to the Queen. Some one in the rear has given a signal to the enemy, and with- 
out, to the right, arise shouts, fanfares of trumpets and triumphant flams of drums.] 
Bothwell. [ To those without.] Ho ! To horse ! To horse ! 
Marv. [Giving her hand to Kirkaldy.] Come, Sir, let us go ! 
[These two last exclamations are simultaneous as the curtain falls. Rude, loud, triumphant 
music accompanies its descent, which gradually changes into softer and mournful 
notes, as the curtain again rises upon a double scene.] 

Fotheringay. 1 Dragsholm. 

Mary, with her head on the block, and Bothwell, lying dead 

the e-xecutioner standing over j upon the floor of his dungeon 

her with upraised axe. \ at Adelsborg. 

[Curtain falls again to sad music, which gradually changes into a symphony, as it rises 
on the reunion of Mary and Bothwell.] 
" James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell," an unpublished Tragedy. 



243 

UKE 16th, 1573, why does not appear, 
Bothwell was privately transferred to the 
Castle of Dragsholm* (Dragon's Island), 
now Adelsborg. Dragsholm appears to 
be an isthmus (island ?) between Seiro 
Bay, and the La(o)mme Fiorde, one of 
the arms of the Ise-Fiorde, on the north- 
west coast of Zealand, fifty-eight miles west of Copen- 
hagen, off the road between the seaport towns of Holbek, 




* Leaving the highroad from Copenhagen to Holbek, " before long 
the imposing Chateau of [Dragsholm, now] Adelsborg [the last place 
of confinement for Bothwell] apjjeared in sight, well placed among the 
surrounding woods, * * * in a private demesne. * * * As we 
approach the borders of the [tranquil] fiorde, on a little promontory 
jutting out into the sea, stands a v/hitewashed gabled church, and its 
spire of ancient date, simple and unadorned, but made to paint, the 
village Church of Faareveile, within whose walls repose [what are 
erroneously represented as] the mortal remains of the Earl of Both- 
well, the so-called [the third and best beloved] husband of Mary Stuart, 
who died a prisoner, some sa_v a maniac, within the walls of Draxholm, 
where he had been privately removed by the King of Denmark. * * 
The ancient castle of Draxholm, or Dragon's Island, was, in former 
days, the property of the Bishop of Roeskilde ; the huge mass of build- 
ings are still something ecclesiastical in their appearance, surrounded 
by a moat, and of no architectural beauty. The great tower [repre- 
sented] in the old engravings of Resen, was destroyed by the Swedes, 
in 1658 ; the chapel gutted during the War of the Counts, in 1533. It 
is the intention of [the present owner, I860,] Baron Zeutphen Adeler 
to restore [it] to its former state. * * Before we proceed to visit 
the church of Faareveile, I may as well explain [in my way] how Both- 
well came to end his days within the prison of the castle of Draxholm. 

" It was in the year 1567 that sentence of death was passed by the 
Scottish Parliament on the Earl of Bothwell, at that time resident in 



244 

to the east, and Kallundsborg, to the west. Faarev-eile, 
where the body of BothM^ell is said to liave been depo- 
sited, is on, or near by, the shore oftlie L(a)onime Fiorde. 

the Orkney IslandB, having under his command a squadron of five 
light-armed vessels of war, * « * Bothwell's squadron, endeavor- 
ing, during a terrific storm, to escajie from an armament sent in their 
pursuit [all mixed up, truth and error], two of his vessels managed to 
enter the harbor of Karmsund, in Norway. Bothwell here declared 
himself to be the husband of the Queen of Scots, and demanded to be 
conducted into the presence of the King of Denmark. Such is the 
account given by English historians. Now, however, that Bothwell is 
safe arrived in Norway, it is as well to consult the account given bj- 
the Danes themselves. In the "Liber Bergensis CapituW we find the 
following notice : 

" ' September 2, A.D. 156S [15(57], came the King's ship "David," upon 
which Christian of Aalborg was head man : she had taken prisoner a 
Count [Earl] from Scotland, of the name of Jacob Hebroe of Botwile, 
who first was made Duke of the Orkneys and Shetland, and lately 
married the Queen of Scotland, and after lie was suspected of having 
been in the counsel to blow up the King [Darnley] : they first accused 
the Queen, and then the Count, but he made his escape, and came to 
Norwa.y, and was afterwards taken to Denmark by the king's sliip 
" David [Bear]." ' The accusation of piracy made against the Scottish earl 
was never credited by Frederic II., or his advisers. Bothwell had hired 
two [two-masted, lesser war-ships, called] pinks, when in Shetland, of 
Gerhard Hemlin the Bremois, for fifiy silver dollars a month, com- 
manded by David AVodt, a noted pirate [privateer, or letter of marque, 
for the terms were then synonymous and expressed by the same word], 
in which he arrived on the coast of Norway, in a miserable plight, his 
own vessel [fiag ship] having returned to Shetland, with his valuables 
on T)oard, to fetch his peojile [and valuables]. Erik Rosenkrantz, the 
Governor [of Bergen], thought necessary to summon a jury of the most 
respectable people of the town, ' twelve brewers of the bridge,' to 
enquire into the Earl's case, and how it was he had become associated 
with so well-known a pirate. Some of the crew afiirmed they knew of 



245 

According to generally received accounts, Bothwell was 
plnnged into a dungeon. Tins is mere surmise. Nothing 
is positively known. 



no other captain than one Wodt, to whom the pink helonged. The 
commission add, that this Hamburger (as Bothwell styles him in his 
narrative) was a well-known pirate. 

" Still they suspected the Earl was about to go over to Sweden, a 
country at war with Denmark ; they accordingly recommend that he 
should take an oath that he would keep peace towards his Danish Ma- 
jesty's subjects, as well as towards all those who brought goods to his 
Majesty's dominions. On this account onlj' [a fear that the Earl was 
about to serve the Swedes, and not for piracy] Erik Rosenkrantz sends 
him a prisoner to Copenhagen. This was, no doubt, the origin of the 
accusation of 'piracy' made by the Earl of Murray [an unrelenting, 
malignant, personal foe] against Bothwell by the mouth of the infant 
king [James VI.], aged eighteen months. The Earl had come to raise 
men in the North to aid the royal [Mary's and his own] cause. Indeed, 
so satisfactory was his examination on this point, it is mentioned in 
the 'Liber Bergenisis' that, two days after his examination — 

" September 28th [1567], Erik Rosenkrantz gave to the Earl and his 
noblemen a magnificent banquet ; and, again, 'the Earl repaired to the 
Castle, and Erik received him with great honor.' * * * * 

" On the 30th September, comes our last notice : ' The Earl was con- 
ducted to a ship and led prisoner to Denmark, that is Malmo-huus. 
This assertion is not quite correct ; as Bothwell remained in Copen 
hagen until the 30th of December [until 10th January, 1568, if not later], 
when he was consigned to the custody of Biorn Kaas, Governor of 
Malmo-huus, together with his companion. Captain Clarke. Rere he 
remained, well treated, with a liberal allowance from the King of Den- 
mark, indulging in potations with his comrade, which later brought 
him to death's door. Many were the requests from the Queen of Eng- 
land and the Scottish Lords to Frederick, demanding that the Earl 
should be handed over to their custody, to which the Danish Sovereign 
always replied by a refusal. If they chose to proceed against him 
they were are at liberty so to do, but judged he must be by Danish 

32 



246 



Even Agnes Strickland is forced to admit that the popu- 
lar tradition of Bothwell's madness is entii-ely without foun- 
dation, and that when at Dragsholm he w^as treated much 



laws. It is related how, after a season, being brought to a state of 
weakness from the effects of a dangerous illness, his conscience tor- 
mented by anguish and remorse [utterly false], he made, in the pre- 
sence of several witnesses, a confession of his share of Darnley's assas- 
sination, exonerating Queen Mary from any participation or know- 
ledge of his crime. Mary, in a letter to her Ambassador on the subject, 
writes the names of those before whom the attestation was made, to 
be : Otto Braw, of the Castle of Elcembre ; Paris Braw, of Vascu ; 
Monsieur Gullensterna, of the Castle of Fulkenster ; Baron Cowes, of 
Malinga Castle ; so Miss Strickland gives them. I have this morning 
consulted a Danish noMlier to see whether I can, among the manors 
once in possession of these families, find any names similar to those 
here given. The spelling is obscure, but really not worse than that 
of a foreigner of the 19th century, if he attempted to write down the 
names by ear. 

" Otto Braw, of the Castle of Elcembre, stands for Otto Brahe, of 
the Castle of Helsingborg, of which he was governor — father of Tycho 
Brahe. He died, however, in 1571. [It does not stand to reason that a 
corse was admitted as a subscribing witness, except in a blood-and- 
thunder drama, such as the Old Bowery ' Dead Hand.'] His son, Steen, 
was at that time alive, and resided near Malmo— indeed, the whole pro- 
vince of Skaane teemed with his family, lehnsmend and governors, tigh 
in authority. Paris Braw, of Vascu, I take to be Brahe, of Vidskovle, a 
chateau near Christianstad ; Gullensterna of Fulkenster, Gyldenstierne 
of Fuletofte, probably Axel, son of Mogens Gyldenstierne, Stadtholder 
of Malmo, and himself a Governor ; while for Baron Cowes, of Mal- 
inge, read Biorn Kaas, Governor of Malmo-huus, whose son, Jorgen, 
was possessor of Meilgarcf, in Jutland. 

" In the copy of Bothwell's confession, preserved in the Scotch Col- 
lege in Paris, these names are again differently written. The Swedes, 
to whom Skaane now belongs, possess again an orthography different 



24Y 

better than he deserved ; perhaps not worse than Mary 
was by Elizabeth. Schiern has demonstrated witli greater 
clearness the utter falsity of the Confession attributed to 



from the Danes. You will not find Ihem written in two books alike. 
After a lapse of fifty years, nothing can be more puzzling. 

" It was in the year 1573, after the confession, that Bothwell was re- 
moved to Draxholni, and treated as a criminal ; though of that no docu- 
mentary evidence exists. * * * M. de Dantzay [The French am- 
bassador] writes word to Charles IX. that the King of Denmark, up to 
the present time, had well treated the Earl of Bothwell, but a few days 
since had caused him to be put ' en une fort maulvaise et estroite pri- 
son.' [This may simply refer to the strength of the Dragon Island 
keep and its loneliness, characteristics which would aftect the judgment 
and language of a Frenchman accustomed to court life and long resi- 
dence in a refined capital.] In the month of November, the same year 
[1573], he again announces, 'le Comte de Baudouel, Ecossais, est aussi 
decede.' Bothwell, however, did not die till April 19th, 1578. [Not 
so, 1575 : — 1578 is disproved by the very narrator further on.] Ac- 
cording to the chaplain of Draxliolm, Frederic, tormented by the de- 
mands of Queen Elizabeth and the Scotch Regents for his deliverance 
into their hands, allowed the report, of his death to be circulated, and 
so put an end to all the worry on the subject. 

" In the chronicle of Frederic II.'s reign, Resen, under the year 1578, 
after stating that Frederic II. caused the dead body of his father to be 
removed from Odense to Rosiklde, continues : ' At that very time the 
Scottish Earl Bothwell also died, after a long imprisonment at Drax- 
holm, and was buried at Faareveile.' That the Scottish Queen, in her 
damp prison of Fotheringay, receiving her intelligence in secret, should 
have been misinformed as to the christian names of the Danish noble- 
men who were summoned to the sick-bed of Bothwell, is not surpris- 
ing ; — such a confusion, too, as exists in these ancient geneologies ; such 
an intermarrying between the families of Kaas, Gyldenstierne, and 
Brahe ; such a changing and exchanging of manors by sale, by dowry, 
by gifte, maal and morgen gaffue (marriage settlement) — my head. 



248 

Bothwell. In all the antlientic papers known to have been 
written by hhn, he insists upon his innocence, and with 
equal force alleges the guilt of Murray and Morton, and 



before we had finished our researches, became a very chaos. [It was, 
the story shows it.] 

" The [supposed] prison of Bothwell is now the wine-cellar of the 
castle, and the iron ring, to which he is reported to have been attached 
a maniac [which is false], stands inserted in the wall, between two 
shelves of the wine-bins — on one lies crusty Port, in the lower Chateau 
Lafitte. What a tantalizing sight for his wine-loving spectre, should 
he by chance revisit the seat of his former prison ! Bothwell died at 
DraxJiolm two years after his removal thither [1573, conseciuently 1575, ?io^ 
1578], and was interred in the parish church of Faareveile. *-:«•* 
On the iron-bound door [of the church] appears the dragon, titular patron, 
I suppose, of the place. The interior is simple, of good architecture, 
with pulpit and altar-piece of Christian IV. 's date, and in sound repair. 
-X- * * They raise a folding trap [since definitely closed] in the chan- 
cel ; a ladder leads to the vault below ; on the right lies a simple wooden 
coffin, encased in an o;iter one for protection ; the lid is removed, a 
sheet withdrawn, uncovered within which lies the mummy-corpse [this 
is altogether without ])roof and apocryphal] of Scotland's proudest 
Earl. The coffin in earlier times reposed in a vault of the chapel of the 
, Adeler family, but was removed by the baron to its present place for 
the convenience of those who desire to visit it without intruding on the 
dormitory of the family. It had always, for centuries, been known as 
the tomb of ' Grev. Bodvell" by sacristan and peasant. When the 
wooden coffin was first opened, the body was found enveloped in the 
finest linen, the head reposing on a pillow of satin (?) There w.\s 

NO INSOKIPTION. 

Now, I am no enthusiast, and take, matters quietly enough, but I 
defj' any impartial Englishman [a nationality most inimical to Both- 
well living and dead] to gaze on this body without at once declaring it 
to be that of an ugly Scotchman. [V ! V ! V ! Ridiculous assertion, and 
no proof whatever, as Schiern demonstrates.] It is that of a man 
about the middle height — and to judge by his hair, red mixed with 



249 

their associates. Even at Draxholm, it is stated that Both- 
well "nevertheless, got permission to go hunting." It is 
supposed that Frederic transferred the Earl from Malmo 
to Dragsholm to relieve himself from the annoyances of the 
applications made by the successive Regents of Scotland 
and the Queen of England. In her endeavors to injure Both- 
well with Frederic II. and retaliate upon the Earl in his dis- 
tress for his life-long patriotic refusals of her invitations to 
imitate Murray, Morton, Kirkaldy and others, and become. 
her tool, spy, and, like Murray, her "fawning spaniel," 
traitor to his country, she descended to the meanness of 
styling Darnley as "King," whereas she had hitherto re- 
fused him that title, both while living and when dead, 



grey, of about fifty years of age. The forehead is not expansive ; the 
form of the head wide behind, denoting bad qualities, of which Both- 
well, as we all know [how, by misrepresentation ? yes !] possessed 
plenty ; high cheek-bones ; remarkably prominent, long, hooked nose, 
somewhat depressed towards the end (this may have been the effect of 
emaciation) ; wide mouth ; hands and feet small, well shaped, those of 
a high-bred man. I have examined the records of the Scottish Parlia- 
ment, caused researches to be made at the British Museum — the cop3^ 
of his ' Hue and Cry' is not forthcoming ; no description of Bothwell 
exists [great error], save that of Brantome, who saw [is supposed to 
have seen] him on his visit to Paris, where he first met Mary, during, 
the lifetime of King Francis. * * Having first severed a lock of his 
red and silver hair as a souvenir, we let close the colfin-lid. * * 
Bothwell's life was a troubled one ; but, had he selected a site in all 
Christendom for quiet and repose in death, he could have found none 
more peaceful, more soft and calm, than the village church of Faar- 
veile." (Horace Marryatt's " Jutland and the Danish Isles ;" pp. 
408-19. de Peyster Alcove, N. Y. Society Library.) 



250 

styling him in her correspondence "the dead gentleman," 
'''• le 7)iort gentilhomme'''' (Buckingham, I., 363-'4). Now 
she invoked vengeance upon Bothwell, as the cruel assassin 
of his relative and sovereign. And here it may be per- 
tinent to observe that Bothwell was of the noblest blue 
blood on all sides. He M^as as nearly related to Mary as 
he was to his divorced Mdfe, Jane Huntley, as he was 
descended from Joanna, daughter of James I., King of 
Scotland, and also from Queen Joanna, or Jane Beaufort, 
wife of James I., by her second husband, Sir James Stew- 
art, "the Black Knight of Lorn." That Bothwell was in 
any degree related to Darnley is not shown. 

When and where did Bothwell die? Many say in 
Malmo-huus. Sheer ignorance ! Shiern says 14th April, 






£^ 




ns-joj-j," 



251 

1578; Petrick in the beginning of November, 1575. 
Whether he died in 1575 or 1578 there is nothing posi- 
tive known of the details of his life after 1571.* 

Reader, have yon ever met with "Historic Doubts," 



* He made no Confession, he left no Testament inculpating himself 
or exonerating Mary in connection with the Darnley killing, and every- 
thing of the kind attributed to him are manipulations or forgeries. The 
best authorities now unite in conceding this. " Mary Stuart received 
the intelligence of Bothwell's decease" — says Gaedeke, 410 — "without 
being much moved at it ; passionate natures like hers have ever been 
wanting in feeling." Just so ! She was a heartless, although excitable 
woman. Now Bothwell, then Darnley ; now Bothwell then Norfolk, 
and then the Axe. Anathema upon her, she was unworthy of a 

" KEAL MAN." 

S'chiern, Petrick and others have shown that no amount of research 
can discover aiiy data to enable the biographer or antiquarian to lift 
even the lowest corner of the veil of doabt and ignorance which hangs 
over the last years of Bothwell. Schiern (386) corroborates Petrick. 
" The Earl's coffin was brought from Dragsholm to the nearest church 
at Faareveile. This church, which stands away from the village, on 
the west bay of Isefjord, in a lonely and quiet spot, the haunt of gulls 
and sea-fowl, is said to be the last resting-place of him who was the 
third and best loved husband of Scotland's Queen. 

"As tradition still points out in Dragsholm the room which was 
Bothwell's prison, so among the coffins in Faareveile church, it con- 
tinues to indicate one, without any inscription or adornment, as the 
coffin of the famous Scotsman. To ascertain the truth of the legend, 
the coffin was opened on the 31st of May, 1858, but without any posi- 
tive mark being seen that the corpse found in it was really Bothwell's." 

Marryat asserts that, unmistakably, the body he saw was that of 
an ugly Scotchman. Schiern explodes such a silly argument and asser- 
tion by citing the fact that "Bothwell was not the only Scotchman that 
was buried in Faareveile Church," and added the question, " How much 
of the 'ugliness' alleged here ought to be ascribed to the fact of the 



252 

or any one of the careful treatises written to prove tow 
unworthy of trust are generally received traditions and the 
majority of histories, so styled. Do you know ? Can you 
answer at once, Who was Joab? The author has asked this 
question indiscriminately many hundreds of times, and, 
except from a constant Bible reader, scarcely ever got a 
correct answer, if any at all, and yet Joab was the grand 
and able general of a great king, the fatlier of the wisest 
monarch that ever grasped a sceptre, and the story of 
Joab, David and Soloman is told in the Book read by all 
civilized people. Joab's dispositions and victory at Me- 
deba constitute an example of a class of peculiar battles, 
of which the latest was our Chancellorsville. Who was 
Simon Stevin of Bruges ? A Dutch mathematician, who 
was the first to throw light on the darkness which had 
brooded upon the world, for 1800 years, since Archimedes. 
Maurice of Nassau was the restorer of militai-y discipline ; 
Simon Stevin was his preceptor in military science, proper, 



body having passed three hundred years in the grave, it is certainly 
not so easy to determine." Wliy was not this tlie body of Captain 
Clark ? Marryat says that the corpse he saw was that of a man of 
middle size. This does not agree with the traditional full-length "col- 
umnar," "overtopping tall," portrait of Bothwell. The famous Prus- 
sian General, von Moltke, justly conceded that great men would not 
enjoy posthumous excellence and immortality without poets and his- 
torians. By impartial pens Bothwell was represented as a stalwart, 
columnar, martial figure, as a powerful and imposing military chief, 
whose resounding tread rang battleward. 



253 

castrematation.and engineering. Who was John Cavalier? 
A little Protestant baker's boy, in a small town among 
the monntains of Languecloc, who, at the age of twenty, 
made an army, equipped with weapons, mostly curiosi- 
ties preserved in old armories, until he wrested better 
from his foes. "With some three thousand peasants whom 
he had drilled, he held at bay sixty thousand regulars — 
veterans, volunteers and militia — and was a match in suc- 
cession for two Marshals of France, one of whom was 
the celebrated Yillars, wdio declared that his youthful op- 
ponent had performed "actions worthy of Caesar." He 
treated as equal with equal with this same Yillars, who 
was a local Alter Ego of Lonis XIY., and by keeping 
such a mass of the best French troops in check in south- 
ern France, Cavalier converted Marlborough's campaign, 
which culminated at Blenheim, 13th August, 1Y04, from 
a probabilit}^ into a certainty, that burst at once the bub- 
ble of French invincibility^ Bothwell belonged to this 
class of marvels. Henry Taylor, author of the wonderful 
dramatic poem, "Philip van Artevelde," tells us 

" The world knows nothing of its greatest men." 

"Such souls, 
Whose sudden visitations daze the world, 
Vanish like lightning, but they leave behind 
A voice that in the distance far away 
Wakens the slumbering ages." 



33 



254 



Botliwell lived on, and died at Dragsholm (? 1575, '76 
or '78) faithful to the motto of his house, " Kiip Trest ! " 




Dragsholm Cas1:le. 

Keep Trust! Be faithful! 

" A gentleman of credit, noble, honest,— 
As true as his own sword." 

His devotion, hoy and man, to Marj of Guise, Queen- 
Dowager and Regent of Scotland, was inviolate and in- 
violable, and when Queen Mary returned to Edinburgh she 
still found his loyalty so lofty and unchangeable, that "it 
seemed to partake of that devotion which shed a halo over 
the days of Chivalry." Botliwell committed the crime 
which, in this world, never receives any other than the 
enigmatic absolution accorded by Pope Pius III. to the 



255 

murderers of Cardinal Beatoun, "Remittimus irremisi- 
BiLE." '■'■ We pardon the deed wJiioh admits of no 2)av- 
don.'''' Bothwell's crime — sucli a deed — was failure, and, 
despite his loyalty, bravery, ability, patriotism and mani- 
fold other gifts, 

•' He left a name at which [his] world grew pale 
To point a moral, or adorn a tale." 

Bothwell's culmination or transit realized the language of 
Macbeth, about to perish : 

"Life's but a walking shadow ; a poor player, 
That strnts and frets his hour upon the stage. 
And then is heard no more : it is a tale 
Told by an idiot full of sound and fury, 
Signifying nothing." 




Bothwell's Book-Stamp, 



256 



APPENDIX. 



Arnold Gaedeke (Giessen, 1879,) on the Authenticity of tlie Casket 
{''GhatouUeTi") Letters, &c. Translated from the original German. 

The genuineness of these celebrated letters has so often been a subject of the most 
embittered controversy, and so many hypotheses of all sorts, made with such an ex- 
penditure of ability, have been advanced* concerning it, that a rehearsal of all the argu- 
ments brought out f.ir and against it, appears superfluous, especially since, to the 
opponents of their authenticity, little peculiarities and immaterial circumstances count 
for more than the most obvious deductions. The genumeness of the letters— in my 
opinion — if one excepts perfect verbal correctness, ^ no longer admits of a doubt. The 
attempts of the majority of recent writers must, decidedly, be rejected, J and the rather 
should this be done, that as good as nothing new is brought forward by them, as a basis 
for their views. It is tlie old hair-splitting, as to date, style, <fec., which is again raked 
up, and which we encounter about equally in all of them. 

There is only the fierce attack on Crawford's deposition, with the reasons given for 
it, which is new, and, therefore, of some importance, for this a document lately dis- 
covered among the Hamilton Papers has furnished tlie material. This document is a 
letter which Darnley's father, the Earl of Lenox, it is said, directed to Crawford from 
Chiswick. In it he conjures him, for God's, sake, to furnish further matter of accusa- 
tion against the Queen, or else the worst result — that is to say, the acquittal of Mary 
Stuart — was to be feared at York. " By all possible methods, to search for more mat- 
ters against her," writes Lenox to Crawford, June 11th, 1568. ('' Hamilton Papers ;" 
Hosack, I., 199.) !^~ It is well known that the adherents of Mary Stuart have falsified 
to an enormous extent, and the circumstance that they should have been found in the 
possession of the Hamiltons is moreover very striking. „^| 

However — granted the genuineness of this letter — we can in the estremest case only 
conclude from it that Crawford, who had been summoned to York as a witness, and 
was preparing his testimony before hand, may have obtained previous knowledge of 
the contents of the Chatoullen letters, and the contents of the Lenox letter shows 
nothing at all against their genuineness. The Chatoullen letters had been long before 
the Scottish Parliament. Besides this the anxiety of Lenox was natural. When he 
wrote the letter in question, Murray liad not yet thrown aside his hesitating attitude, 
which the Duke of Norfolk evidently had caused him to take, and he held back with the 
principal article of accusation. The anxiety of Lenox was acutely shared by Queen 
Elizabeth and by the English Commissioners. It is also to be remembered that Throck- 
morton had already declared, in a report of 15th July, 15G7. that there were in Scotland 
proofs, in Mary's own handwriting — and finally, it is further to be borne in mind, that 



* The attempt of Wiesener has been very justly rejected by Maurenbrecher (" his- 
torische Zeitschrift,"' XIV., 521 ff.) 

t The original letters and the original casket (Fassung) are no longer to be found. 
The letters were in the possession first of Morton, then of Gowiie, and, finally, came 
into the hands of James VI., who, no doubt, destroyed them. We have only the Scotch 
and Latin translation, as also the retranslation into French of 1572. 

X The opinion of the corresi)ondent of the Augsburger Allgetneine Zeitung, of the 
5th May, 1878, appears very groundless and rash. In a criticism of the works of Chan- 
telauze and Morris he is bold enough to assert, on the basis of the recent publications, 
" that the view founded on a shuttle can scarcely any longer enjoy general assent." 



257 

the, as yet, cherished idea, that, the falsity of one letter being proved, the fate of all the 
others is decided, does not answer in historical criticism. 

The chief arguments for the genuineness of the Chatonllen [diiiicult to be dealt 
with ?] letters have, up to the present time, been the following : 

1. The agreement of the first principal letter with the declarations of Crawford, to 
whom Darnley, immediately after his interview with the Queen, imparted what was 
said, in order that the former should give an account of it to his father. 

2. The mention of Hiegate, Ac. a circumstance which no falisfier could have in- 
vented. This Hiegate was a town-clerk of Glasgow, who was said to have made a 
declaration as to the intention of Darnley to obtain possession of the young prince, his 
son. The Queen wrote about the affair to Archbishop Beatoun 0]i the 20th January, 
1567, and for many years no one knew how to explain the passage concerning it. 

3. The peculiar form of the letter, which breaks off in the middle, from want of 
paper, &c., and is afterwards finished. 

4. The confidential letter of the Earl of Lenox to his wife, in which the finding of 
the Chatoullen letters is discussed. 

5. The unanimous decision of the English Commissioners, among whom was the 
Duke of Norfolk. No one held the letters to be falsified, there is nothing of the sort 
mentioned in the record. 

6. The behavior of the Queen herself. Her commissioners declared, only on the 
6th December, that all writings which could be brought forward by the rebels were cal- 
umnies and private communications, which could in no way be prejudicial to their mis- 
tress. Finally the Queen herself declared that Murray was, without doubt, in posses- 
sion of papers of the highest importance. 

To these proofs we are, in my opinion, now able to add a new and not inconsider- 
able argument. A passage of that first letter has remained up to this day (it has escaped 
even Froude) unconsidered, and this, simply, because it was not understood. We have, 
only within a few years, obtained the key to it through Teulet's publications. Just at 
the commencement of the conversation, we find a short question of Darnley's, whether 
the Queen had already prepared her " etal,''' a question which she answers in the aflirm- 
ative. We now know that this " etaV was a List, prepared for inspection, of pensions and 
pensioners, and which was paid in France, out of the widows's-portion of the Queen, 
40,000 Livres ; and that this list was prepared annually and forwarded to France, in 
order to serve as a warrant for the payments. The chief part of the recipients were 
Frenchmen, or servants living in France, as Beatoun, the ambassador, who received 
3,060 Livres. The document of February, 1567, is in existence, signed by Mary Stuart 
and her secretary, Joseph Rizzio, brother of David, and, therefore, must have been 
prepared immediately before the Glasgow visit. (Estat des gaiges des dames, desmoi- 
selles, gentilzhommes at outres ofticiers domestiques de la Royne d'Ecosse, Douariaire 
de France. Teulet II., 268.) 

It is almost impossible that a falsifier should have hit upon this question, and very 
unlikely that the fact, in general, was known to many persons. Its being a short simple 
question is of consequence here ; if a falsifier had wished to make use of the circum- 
stance, the passage would, without doubt, have been worded in an entirely different 
manner. But it is, most of all, of consequence, that in the Scottish Parliament, when the 
papers were laid before it, no one stood up for the Queen, although Huntley, Errol, and, 
above all, Herries were present. A circumstance which alone should be of suflicient 
weight to confute all the objections of apologists. The Parliament declared that " the 
process against the Queen was caused by her own offence," which was proved by various 
confidential letters, in her own hand, written to Bothwell before and after the murder 
of the King.* 



* To be attributed to her own default, in so far as be divers her privie lettres writ- 
ten halely by her aun hand, and send be her to James, sometime Earl of Bothwell, chief 



258 

I will now turn to the objections which have been made by the other side. As re- 
gards the date of the letters, there is to be put into the scale that we have not the 
orisjinal letters, and that, in writing the translations, errors and faults in writing might 
easily occui. If there were a desire to falsify, it was easy either to omit the date 
entirely or to give it with the greatest exactness. I can find no contradiction in tliis re- 
gard. The Queen reached Glasgow on the 24th of January ; the same night she wrote 
that lung, famous letter to Bothwell, which she finished on the morning of the 25th. 
Paris set out at once, reached the capital on Saturday night, and brought the answer 
back to Glasgow on the morning of the 27th. The distances are not so great as to 
throw any doubt on this. Mary Stuart left Glasgow on the 27th. and arrived at the 
capital on the 28th. Paris, as a courier, accomplished the journey in still shorter time. 
Murray's Journal is in error when it makes BothwelFs first arrival in Edinburgh on the 
28th, or, what is much more likely, Bothwell, who stayed in the capital on the 25th and 
26th, incognito, left the city with Paris, and returned on the 28th. 

Hosack's grounds for the spuriousness of the letters have no significance. He 
directly denies Mary's passion for Bothwell (a thing which cannot be doubted), because 
she had " known him altogether too long." The audacity of Hosack's conclusions is 
generally wonderful. He likewise brings up Murray's will as a proof of Mary's innocence. 

When Murray, after the murder of Darnley, betook himself to France, he made his 
will, and in it recommended his only daughter to the care of the Queen, in the most 
urgent manner. ("Morton Papers." Printed by the Bannetyne Club. I., 19.) At this 
time Murray had not the slightest knowledge of the Ghatoulleii letters ; but, even if he 
had, he might still have commended his daughter to the care of his sister and sovereign, 
without thereby admitting the innocence of this last. 

The " noisy " method and manner in which Darnley was killed, has also often been 
brought forward in favor of Mary Stuart. It certainly cannot be denied that the good 
sense of the Queen would at once cause her, in case she was initiated into the plans of 
her lover, to protest against this way of death, and, if one wishes to be just, it must 
further be admitted that, besides the declarations of Bothwell's servants — to which I 
attacli but small importance — there is no piece of proof in existence tliat the Queen 
had a knowledge of all the details. Igp"This, however, diminishes her guilt in a very small 
degree ; it does not even remove the character of treachery from her, since, tliat some- 
thing was intended against her husband, Mary Stuart must have known as certainly as 
it is certain that .she stood in a lover's relation with Bothwell. We possess the most 
indubitable proof of this. ..^^ 

Froude, an opponent, cannot conceal his wonder at the above. A murder by poison, 
he thinks, would, relatively, have but little injured her character. Aside from the fact 
that in Scotland such a thing was not usual. Bothwell knew perfectly well what he was 
about when he chose the " more noisy "' mode of death. Already in possession of the 
ChatmUen letters, he then liad the means of compelling the Queen to marry him. 
Exactly this noise-making, and otherwise entirely senseless mode of murder, is a proof, 
little considered, but very weighty for the genuineness of the letters. |^"From the 
openness of the crime these letters first obtained their peculiar value. Hence sprang, after 
the marriage, the curious, lieretofore incomprehensible, sadness and despair of the 
Q,iieen, for whom there was no alternative from submitting to the will of Bothwell, 
although she foresaw the consequences and was badly treated by her lover.,^311 

It is, moreover, frequently maintained, of late, that the style of the letters is too 
inelegant and unpolished for the Queen to have written them, and that the Sonnets are 
too poor to pass for the work of so good a poetess ; that Mary's letters are refined, ele- 
gant, harmonious: these the opposite, "coarse, awkward and the merest patcliwork," as 



executer of the said horrible murther, as well before the committing thereof as there- 
after. " Anent the retention of our Sovreane Lords Motheris Person Act, 1567, c. 19, 
Act Pari. III., 27." Burton, IV., p. 438. Scribner & Welford's edit., IV., 264-'5 (3). 



259 

Skelton calls them [passion, mixed with conscious guilt, does not produce flue com- 
position]. 

The Sonnets, however, are by no means so bad, particularly when one compares them 
with those poems of the Queen on her first husband ; in addition the form and [sound 
of the words ?] as they now appear (are) probably not the original ones. Finally we 
possess very few really Intimate and confidential letters written by the Queen. 

But these (last named) letters, as, for instance, the one to the Duke of Norfolk, 
whom Mary had never seen, hetray in their style a remarkable similarity to the style 
of the ChatouUen letters, as Burton has elegantly and strikingly shown iLabanoff, III.. 
p. 4, 11, 18) ; and this fact is in a much higher degree true of the well known letter 
which Mary Stuart wrote under passionate excitement to Elizabeth, in which she re- 
pels the calumnies of the Countess of Shrewsbury. 

Furthermore, a forger would certainly not have introduced this degree of passion- 
ateness into the letters, it lay in the character of the Queen ; also, he would never have 
put in the numberless trifles, from doing which, it is the custom for any one to be on 
their guard in a forgery. Petit maintains, since other grounds of proof fail him, that 
the Sonnette, in which the words, "I put my son in thy hands" occur, is alone a suffi- 
cient proof of spuriousness, because the young Prince had never been in BothwelTs 
hands. Yet it does not read, " I have put," and it is only intended to imply that Mary 
with her marriage expected to leave the safety of herself and of her son trustfully in 
the hands of Bothwell. _g3! 

Very remarkable, also, is the view of the same author, to the effect that Bothwell 
would, had he been in possession of the letters, infallibly have shown them to the 
Lords at the Ainslie Tavern, and not less remarkable, finally, that Bothwell would have 
destroyed the letters after the marriage, since it was for his interest to annihilate the 
written proofs of his guilt. They were articles of proof for Mary's guilt ; for that of 
Bothwell there were certainly other and far more weighty ones. 

It must be explained, also, that the report of de Silvas to Philip II., of 31st July, 
1567, has, as Petit reviews it, been torn out of its proper connection. Elizabeth was, in 
the highest degree, enraged at Lethington, and the other Lords. In respect to the let- 
ters she had not yet a satisfactory understanding. Thus she could speak to de Silvas in 
no other way. 

It is remarkable that Skelton does not completely reject the genuineness of the 
ChatouUen letters, and this shows that he had not been able to get rid of the Impression 
of their testing by the English Commissioners, in Westminster. He thinks that they, 
in part, really are from the hand of the Queen, but he excepts the two dated from Glas- 
gow and Sterling. The others, he thinks, are from Mary's hand, yet written to Darn- 
ley, and taken by the opponents of the Queen, i. e., in this case the falsifiers, from her 
papers, "in order to intermingle truth and falsehood, and give to the falsified parts the 
appearance of genuineness." He directly accuses Lethington as the falsifier, he ex- 
pressly exempts Murray, for the letters were tampered with during his absence from 
Scotland. The accusing of Lethington is the more senseless since he (Lethington), from 
direct political reasons, had made the greatest efforts to prevent Murray's accusation and 
the production of the letters. 

The conversation which Murray had with the Spanish Ambassador, de Silva, in 
London, on his return journey from France, is brought up by Hosack as a vindication. 
From what was said, however, it can only be concluded that Murray, then, had no pre- 
cise knowledge in regard to the ChatouUen letters. But Hosack immediately concludes 
that another letter had been first falsified, and at a later time changed. 

On the other hand, as regards direct participation in and privity to the murder of 
herhushand by Mary Stuart, people have, up to the present time, gone somewhat too 
far. That Mignet should, at once, give full faith to the declarations of Bothwell's ser- 
vants, which they made before their executions, has always been wonderful to me. 
The probability is very apparent that the accessory's accessories strove to cover them- 
selves under the Queen's participation and approval of it. 



260 

It is, too, a decisive weight in tlie scale, tliat the chief actor, Hubert, called 
Frencli Paris, did not make the compromising statements against the Queen until the 
second day of the examination ; on the first day he, on the contrary, only described 
Bothwell's arrangements and activity. The conclusion is almost self-evident that his 
last declarations were pressed from him by the opponents of the Queen through hints 
of escape. Among these, especially belong the story of the costly coverlet, which the 
Queen caused to be brought away, shortly before the explosion. As to the (particulars) 
of Hubert's e.xamination and the review of it, we know nothing. Haste was made to 
have him executed when he was, in the middle of June, 1569, brought to Scotland from 
Copenhagen by Captain Clark. As being In accordance with these points, the pretended 
Will of Bothwell is also brought forward by these recent authors. It has very recently 
been proved, in the most convincing manner, to be a forgery, although not unskilfully 
done, after very careful examination by Fred. Schiern, in Copenhagen. 

As a new and important proof of the innocence of Mary Stuart, Hosack finally also 
cites an unquestionably very interesting letter from the Earl of Sussex to Cecil. This 
letter, however, on closer examination, contains entirely different things from what 
Hosack would make us believe. Sussex only says, in this letter : " It will be difficult 
to find ground for an accusation against the Queen, for if her opponents brought for- 
ward the letters, she might simply deny these, and justly accuse many among them of 
having themselves wished for the murder. So there might be better proofs.'" Thus, 
now, to draw the conclusion that Sussex considered the letters as falsified is an unhistori- 
cal and illogical proceeding, especially as Sussex, at that time, had in no way seen 
them. This letter is dated 22d October, 1568. That remarkable account of a contem- 
porary (Dr. Thomas Wilson), concerning a confidential conversation, which he says he 
had with the Bishop of Ross, in relation to the imprisoned Queen, is also worthy of 
little credit as to its contents, and of doubtful meaning. The Bishop, and thus the 
representative of Mary Stuart, according to this conversation, not only allows the guilt 
of his mistress, but accuses her, most unambiguously, of killing, by poison, her first 
husband, the Dauphin. If Lesly really made this declaration, he appears as one of the 
most contemptible characters of that time, and Wilson's exclamation, " Lord, what a 
people, what an ambassador !" seems to be justifiable. We know too little of the per- 
sonality of Wilson, and of the relations of the two men to each other, to be able to pass 
a clear judgment in the case. * * * 

I come, finally, to the declaration of Crawford. Burton, very properly, emphasizes 
the weight which his testimony possesses, under any circumstances. It possessed more 
clearness than any statement of facts which the Lords handed in. Crawford was known 
as a quiet honorable man, an excellent soldier, who, at a later period, performed dis- 
tinguished service. Crawford, on his oath, declared what was read to him was true and 
accurate, " although it was, perhaps, not in the very words." He declared that Lenox, 
disquieted in regard to the unexpected visit of the Queen, had begged him to take 
notice of all that passed. And that the King, immediately afterwards, had communi- 
cated to him the particulars of the conversation, in order that he might inform his 
father of them. The commissioners of Mary declined, at Westminster, to hear Craw- 
ford orally on the subject. Hosack considers it entirely impossible that any interview 
could be rehearsed by two eye-witnesses with such similar expressions, and instances 
two reports of a modern legal speech. The question, however, is here, over some few 
very definite questions and answers ; and, besides, as already mentioned, it is not im- 
possible that Crawford had obtained a look at the Queen's letters before he prepared 
his testimony. Those letters of Lenox and Wood, which asked from Crawford details 
in regard to the sojourn of the Queen in Glasgow, in regard to her arrival, suite, conver- 
sation, whether she sent off letters and parcels, and had received returns, only show 
that Lenox was gathering all the materials he could, as, indeed, Murray in like manner, 
without doubt, caused his Book of Articles to be carefully prepared. 



flip %xt%\. 



The Illustrations 
in this work have been derived from various sources. The likeness of 
Mary Stuart was reproduced from a very rare engraving, labeled " Ma- 
ria SCOTORVM RrGINA Ex PiCTUKA FrEDERICI ZtJCHARI IN ^DIBTJS 
NOBILISSIMI AC HONORATISSIMI DnI. DnI. BaHONIS DE CaRLTON. 

Oeorgius Virtue Londini Sculpsit, 1725." Frederico Zucchero, born 
in 1543, resided several years in England, where he grew into high re- 
pute, and painted a portrait of Queen Elizabeth," &c. The photo-en- 
graving of Bothwell Castle is from an old print, one of several so 
closely resembling each other, it must be correct ; Hermitage Castle 
and Bothwell's Book-stamp are from Prof Schiern's "Life of the Great 
Earl;" Malmo-huus is from Horace Marryatt's "Year in Sweden;" 
Dragsholm frora an original by Resen, reproduced in "Jutland and the 
Danish Isles," by the same author, both of whose works are in the 
DE Peyster Alcove, New York Society Library. 




^^^24 82 



/X" 






^-\ 



-\- 



^..^ 



xV .A 






\ \ l^ N r, , '/- 






^0 








^# 




.^^' '• 


'"•'%*<' 


, 


^:. v^^' 





,'\" 



■0- -b 













'/ 


s" 




.^ 


3- «a 


O ' -L 


->^ 


./■ 


•^; 




% 


^0 . 




s<\ 






"* 




^y- 


v^' 


o 







%,^- 



,0 o. 






.#■ % 












■^ 8 I A * ^^■^' 



■'^^> ,^^" 



\' s 



%-J> 



^' -^^ 



. 



. . -^ .A 












A-^ .. ^ ' ^ ''■ '^ 



o. 






^-\■'■■ 


V 




\- 






^ O 






^ \ 


1 ft . -^^ 




-0" ^ ■■■ 


•..<-' 




I' .X- 


' ' ^" ' ^ '"^ 








v^^' 



<><i^ 

-x^^' "^^ 



.^^^ . 



■"\ 



\0 o ^ 



0- -o 



N>\^ 






.0- 



. o- ^ ^ '-■ 






/■ C- 



'^<^^" ." 



•'^>-.^^ 







s\^ 



S -r, 



.-^>^^% 



•' ., .^ 



"^^. V^' 



.#'^. 






.^^ , ' - . '''. 



5/ '/ ... ... s-^ ^^^ 



^c^ . ^. 



-0- V 



-^' 






^0 C- 



-5,' 



.-i. 






* '°.l"«/'o- 






CO' 

o5 r;^ 






A^ . >J c 



o 0' 
a5 -^C/. 






.0- 






"-^ V^^ 










o^. '' , 






\0 o. 



•-X~- ,;^ 



o 



\ - a . ^ ^' "^ A^ 



A'^ C-, .-0' v"' * * 



».• 



A- 












W'••■''•\^*^^••^ 



^^ * 



'X-.-v 



•O' x^-- 



■^. 



,v^-i, -' -7^ 



a\ 









X^' 






J^^ 



s-^' 



\X' ■!>. 



,A^ ^ <■■ * 






,0 o . 









-X^ 



. \^ . s 



'^./^«,-^ x^ 



,0- 






'p^ 



A' V 



.iS' 



\. <?' '^^ ' « ^ A - 'V 



'p. - ^ j>%^ "Ss .-> 'X 









A^^' ■"■P- 






-.'T?" 

^ 



'V 




"^A <^ 



> * ') s v^.^^ 









0^ 



h,-v^^ -- 






^0-{B^ '. 



-^' 






%,^' 







-- A- 



,^^ -^c^. ^ 



< ^ <:' •-' ^ \ 



X^^^. 






V,. c^^ 



/. "^'i 


X' 


■■ 0"^ 


%. " 


1 A ■ 


x^^' 


<-• 








..^^^ 




■" <>^ 


'*- 




x'^' 










^ 
-^ 






H>,S^ 






.' 






V < ^' "^ '■ i< 






-^^>.. 






A^ 



#^ 



X>' ■/>, 



^ ^ . :^b 










.-V -7-^. 






s-^ V ■> " / C 



> .-- / 






^,^' 









■v 
\ 



A^ 



















^ ' ^ 


/ 


^< 






I.-* 






.. ^ ^ -^^ 


a . 




.0 








L'" 






■>^ 


0^ 






.^^ 


"^^^ 


. -.^ . ' 





.^^' 



V- y 



o'\-' 



.'^ .o-^ 



.^'^' 



^ 


"'J"' 


A 


z 


</• 


\^ 


.-■ 


.^^ 


%. 


^ 




\ f 


0^ 


^ " ^ 






■s" 





xV r. 



^,v^ 






^"3 -^<, 



^ c'^' 

J^. 



.^ 















'^^ " , ^'^^ 



0- 



.^ -d^ 



x^\ 



'^r. ""''~ X^ 



-^v -xv 



\x , %'-r:':\y^ 









\X (, N t. . ' ^. 



;-pAL!3 



o<. -7-- 



<^ c^ 






A' 



Oo. 



■^ o> 



''- • X ^ - ' // . 



.0^ 



00^ 






.\ 










.■•X 



sX^ -/^- 






\\' ■/', 



cf- 



, .. -^ V^ 



o. 



'! -P 















.,A ■7;'. 



,^_ v^^y 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



HI II III III II mil mil mil ill ii ii 
009 883 829 6 



